The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewJames Thompson Archive
Growing Intelligence
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Biome mean annual temperature

If people were crops, where would they be best planted?

Like many people, I have read some books which have led me astray. They were plausible, and although I could see errors in them, I continued reading so as to learn new things. I am willing to accept that authors can be wrong about some things, yet right about others. It is a matter of degree. Baloney detection is not that difficult, and some books have to be cast aside, lest they clutter one’s mind with nonsense.

As to “Guns, Germs and Steel” I could see that the author was wrong about intelligence, deliberately wrong, but I grimly understood that many public figures feel it politic to lie about such things, and I was willing to keep reading in order to learn about geography and flora and fauna, about which I know too little. Cavalli-Sforza also found it politic to dismiss intelligence in the early pages of “Genes, Peoples and Languages”, and then give his results anyway in the rest of his book. Perhaps he knew that most people read only the first 25 pages. The same is true of many psychology researchers who like to denigrate intelligence, particularly when it comes to group differences. Their secrets are safe with me. I have no wish to see them bothered, just because they muddy the waters and leave dots unconnected. Live and let live.

Geography has somewhat lapsed in popularity as a discipline. Perhaps this is due to a conceit that humans have mastered geography, so late their bounded home, and can now rise above it, into a totally secure, well insulated, air-conditioned world. Such over-confidence may account for people who live in flood zones being surprised when they are flooded.

But geography is a common thread in the great debate about what makes some nations richer, better organized and more agreeable than others. In his tome, Jared Diamond blamed geography for these differences, arguing that people were all alike, but had to deal with different circumstances. (In fact, without any supportive evidence, he announced that the residents of Papua New Guinea were the brightest, perhaps seeking virtue through perversity). The contrary position is a longer-term view, namely that over generations (at least 16 of them?) people become adapted to their circumstances, and change in their character and ability through natural selection.

On this point, researchers have usually looked at latitude as an indicator of geographic influences. Distance from the Equator is a good predictor of outcomes. Can one do better than this, and include other relevant measures to get a best-fit between human types and their regions of origin? In that last question lies a complication. Originally in ships, and now more swiftly and cheaply in wide-body jets, people move around. In fact, looking back over history, migrations are hardly new, though they took far longer to achieve prior to modern transport. It should be possible to trace back genetic groups to their geographies of origin. Cavalli-Sforza required his subjects to show settled residence traceable back to 1492, which is a mere 21 generations ago, if we estimate 4 generations per century. Of course, with genetic methods we should be able to do better. However, the work to be considered below does not take up that particular issue. Rather, it seeks to create a typology of biomes which may be related to intelligence. It is a work in progress, initially a conference presentation (see link below) with a set of explanatory notes which set out some of the arguments, and the matters which still need to be resolved. It explores some options, and may give us a better approach to the general discussion of which environments favour the development of intelligence.

Using biome mapping and weighting to more precisely predict biogeographic differences in intelligence
Steven C. Hertler, Mateo Peñaherrera-Aguirre

Latitude and mean annual temperature powerfully predict the biogeographic distribution of intelligence. As single metrics, latitude and mean annual temperature have only one another as competitors. Of course, they are highly inter-correlated, with obvious causal connections. Mean annual temperature may in fact be superior to latitude because of its more explicitly composite nature. This is especially true if mean annual temperature is measured in a sophisticated fashion, across multiple measurement points which are then amalgamated. If this is done, mean annual temperature can implicitly account for oceanic warming trends and high altitude steppes and mountain ranges. However, there are other physical ecological components for which mean annual temperature fails to account, or does so insufficiently. One example is moisture or hydrology. Countries in Saharan and sub-Saharan Africa, for instance, do not greatly vary in mean annual temperature, even while having contrasting amounts of available water. Another example is soil quality. Inceptisols (early soil formations) and other soil types can be found across great stretches of latitude, and so are present at a variety of mean annual temperatures. Climatic factors such as hydrology and soil type that remain outside the reach of the predictive powers of mean annual temperature, nonetheless, are of great import to human cognitive evolution.

To improve upon a meta-indicator of climate, in this case latitude, Figueredo and colleagues included a Temperate Broad Leaf Deciduous Forest Factor. This turned out to be a powerful composite predictor variable because Temperate Broadleaf Deciduous Forests only exist within certain parameters; specifically between 40 and 60 degrees north latitude, within a particular band of temperature values, bounded in the north by permafrost, and in the south by competing coniferous tress. Their presence also denotes moderate moisture and rich brown alfisols (typically under a hardwood forest cover) which may be particularly productive of early agricultural yields, while discouraging helminth endo-parasites (worms). The presence of temperate broadleaf deciduous forest biomes seems particularly valuable in accounting for some nations with high outlying intelligence. Notwithstanding these observations, temperate forests are not present in the majority of regions or nations. Accordingly, the present study uses a global biome map made available by the World Wildlife Federation to extend the Temperate Broadleaf Deciduous Forest Factor into a broadly applicable biome classification system that can compass the full range of selective regimes. We present ordinarily ranked biomes via a hypothesized relationship to cognitive evolution. To the extent that the present distribution of cross-national intelligence is analysed, it is analysed in light of migration, population heterogeneity and predicted migration routes. The heuristic value of such a method is compelling. Physical ecology is to some extent better predicted while community ecology is directly measured.

At this point you might chose to look at the conference slides, and then come back to the notes.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B3c4TxciNeJZTVUzWGtZanZDazg

Soils can be ranked by differences in fertility, and these vary considerably in different parts of the world.

Biome soils

Hertler cites the following passages from Walter & Breckle (1999), which are illustrative of the readings contributing to his biome model.

Though tropical rainforest soils are very old and often deep, they are of the oxisol and utisol types in about two third of coverage. Oxisols and utisols have only moderate to low fertility. Moreover, seven percent of tropical area is then comprised of “quartz sand-rich alluvial terrace” which is weathered and leeched and so nutrient deficient. Consequently, “present day agricultural practices are only possible on about 20% of the tropical soils, namely the younger volcanic soils (alfisols) and the rich alluvial soils in large river valleys…”

“Soils are usually extremely poor in nutrients and are acid (pH=4.5-5.5), which would, at first sight, appear to be contradicted by the luxuriance of the vegetation. In fact, almost the entire nutrient reserves required by the forest are contained in the above ground phytomass. Each year, a part of this phytomass dies off and is rapidly mineralised, and the nutritional elements thereby released are immediately taken up again by the roots. Despite the high rainfall, there is almost no loss of nutrients due to leaching; the water in the streams has the electrical conductivity of distilled water and is, at most, coloured slightly brown by humus colids”

This explains the paradox. It is comparable to landed wealth…no liquid capital (ground nutrients available and stored in soil) but only sequestered capital (embodied in trees, and so not available for growth). Rapid cycling by termites and other organisms, and then rapid reuptake keep minerals sequestered; but the key is that clearing the forests will result in rapid decomposition followed by leeching, making the soils unfit for sustained agriculture. In contrast, Temperate Broadleaf Deciduous Forests with their slower rate of decomposition which comes from less and less speciose decomposers that can only work half the season, like a slow release drug…slowly cycling back nutrients into the soil.

With such a rapid cycling of nutrients, the rain forest can grow for thousands of years on the same site, but as soon as it is deforested and the wood burned, intensive leaching of the suddenly mineralized nutritional reserves occurs. Only a small portion is adsorbed by the soil colids and can be utilized for a few years by cultivated plants. If cultivation is discontinued, a secondary forest develops; these forests, however, never attain the luxuriant habit of the original forest. If this is once more cleared for temporary cultivation, a fresh loss of nutrients takes place due to leaching until, after a series of such exploitations, the soil is capable only of supporting bracken. After the burning of such areas, grasses, for example, alang-alang (Imperata) which have limited nutrient requirements, can gain a foothold. These grasses are of no value for grazing.

“The tropical rain forest growing in poor soils is inhospitable to human settlements and is usually avoided by people. It is often a refuge of aboriginal tribes. In Africa these are the Pygmies, and in Latin America, original Indian tribes. Even in South-East Asia some of the original tribes have survived. In contrast to these habitats, the remnants of former rain forests on nutrient-rich, young volcanic soils are densely populated cultivated lands (for example Java, Central America). Only in these areas is it possible to maintain long-term agriculture. Tree felling in all other areas leads to a catastrophic loss of nutrients, expressing very clearly the “ecological” disadvantage of the tropics (Weischet 1980). Deforested areas are worthless after a few years, as they are subject to erosion and soon covered by Gleichenia or Imparata thickets of no value.

One of the more interesting findings is how poor tropical soils are. I expected them to be rich, but their nutrients are sequestered within the biomass and then lost and leached rapidly upon slashing and burning. In contrast, temperate forests keep this rich and deep nutrient layer generated from the constant cycling of leaves; and this provides centuries worth of fecund cultivation even after the forests are cleared.

Some soils really are better than others for the cultivation of crops and people.

As regards the biome/intelligence link implied by the maps of Japan, Hertler explains:

I would be interested to see a more complete IQ map for Japan. I see in this incomplete one a patch of low IQ in red on the right map. This falls on a tropical section, which corresponds with the theory. Generally, I would think both the few tropical sections, as well as the north most island has lower IQ than the central portion. In part this is due to historical distribution of different peoples (I recall the northern island being occupied by genetically distinct persons). In part, however, it is due to intelligence and high K people competing for and occupying the most desirable climatic zone and those that comport with the evolutionary conditions in which their civilization and ancestors evolved. What data there is shows high IQ in the TBDF Temperate Broadleaf Deciduous Forest Zones.

As to the theoretical justifications for a Biome Classification in which biomes are ranked by capacity to encourage the growth of intelligence, Hertler admits this is ad hoc and theoretical, rather than systematic or empirical. (He has a more elaborate explanation of the weighting system).

Biomes 14

As presented in Table 3, these biomes are ordinarily ranked from one to fourteen, via a hypothesized relationship to cognitive evolution. The overarching underpinnings of this ordering is an adaptation of cold winters theory. As per cold winters theories (Lynn, 1991; Rushton, 1995), the evolution of high cognitive ability derived from post migration exposure to extreme cold within Eurasian climates. Tool use, shelter construction, and new heights of cooperative big game hunting were among the cognitively demanding necessities that theoretically drove cognitive gains. Later use of cold winters theory laid even more stress on seasonality (Hertler, 2015; 2016). The predictably cycling between permissive warmth and exacting cold demanding greater conscientiousness as per this theory. And conscientiousness carries with it cognitive connotations, in that the conscientiousness are inherently more future oriented and exhibit more self-control. Being more likely to subordinate the present to the future, one might say that those in northerly environments have more executive control and the behavioral correlates of that executive control that we commonly call conscientiousness within the personality literature (Hertler, 2105).

Following from these observations, the relation between intelligence and cold is herein predicted to be curvilinear. In consequence, it is the temperate biomes that are placed most highly: Temperate Broadleaf & Mixed Forests (TBMF), Temperate Coniferous Forests (TCF), Mediterranean Forests, Woodlands & Scrubs (MFWS), and Temperate Grasslands, Savannas & Shrublands (TGSS). In accordance with this curvilinear prediction, these four biomes are purposefully placed above the Boreal Forests/Taiga (BFT) and Tundra (T) biomes. Nevertheless, for the purposes of the present analysis, this point is more or less moot as Boreal Forests/Tundra is absent from this data set and Tundra is only present as a minority portion of China’s territory. On the other hand, generally speaking, there are warm climates. These come to predominate along the equator. Cold becomes rarer, and seasonality, if it is present, often relates more to water availability than to temperature fluctuation. And it is, in fact, water availability to separates these subtropical and tropical climates most distinctly. The combination of hot and wet gives rise to the Tropical & Subtropical Moist Broadleaf Forests (TSMBF) for instance, which does not positively pull for intellectual development as per cold winters theory, but which also engenders a hive of biological activity, much of it detrimental to human life. Following this, Deserts & Xeric Shrublands (DXS) exert the action of heat, but do not compound heat with excessive water availability.

Singapore is an outlier among outliers. The demographics of Singapore make it a prime candidate for exclusion, not because it is a positive outlier that is nearly twice as extreme as the next positive outlier, but because in the 1800s there was a large influx of Chinese who now make up approximately seventy percent of the total population. So while Singapore lies on the equator, it is not populated by persons that evolved in that territory. Certainly, there are other instances where migration will significantly affect the predictive power of biome analysis, but these less extreme instances will be left for post hoc analysis using other methods.

Averaging biomes for large countries with multiple biomes like South Africa, and most especially China, will likely prove problematic. China’s population, for instance is located on the east coast amidst largely temperate biomes, even while a great proportion of its interior is desert.

In summary, the argument that geography affects the development of humans and their civilizations need not be a bone of contention between hereditarian and environmentalist perspectives, so long as environmentalists are willing to agree that long-term habitation in a particular biome could lead to evolutionary changes over generations. Singapore, rather than being an exception, may be the embodiment of the rule.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B3c4TxciNeJZTVUzWGtZanZDazg

 
• Category: Science • Tags: Genetic Diversity, Geography, IQ 
Hide 422 CommentsLeave a Comment
422 Comments to "Growing Intelligence"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. so long as environmentalists are willing to agree that long-term habitation in a particular biome could lead to evolutionary changes over generations.

    I don’t see why this is so hard to agree with. It’s just ‘common sense/knowledge’.

    Some soils really are better than others for the cultivation of crops and people.

    This wasn’t too surprising to learn for me. This is also another reason for malnutrition in Africa.

    “The tropical rain forest growing in poor soils is inhospitable to human settlements and is usually avoided by people. It is often a refuge of aboriginal tribes. In Africa these are the Pygmies, and in Latin America, original Indian tribes.

    And these peoples evolved in places that lack energy, so their body size reflects their evolutionary history (See Daniel Lieberman’s 2013 book The Story of the Human Body for more information).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /jthompson/growing-intelligence/#comment-2024463
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. Singapore, rather than being an exception, may be the embodiment of the rule.

    Singapore couldn’t be the embodiement of anything else but the fact that a tax-haven city state located on the busiest maritime trade route in the world has to be a successful nation.

    But:
    -Singapore is not the richest city-state in the world
    -Not the richest tax-heaven in the world
    -Not the richest center of trade.

    A better vindication would be Hawaii with the plurality of its population being descended from Japanese coolies. Hawaii is definitely not Singapore, not even close to.

    Also, disease burden correlates with IQ much better than latitude or temperature.

    The biome ranking that you show just reflects habitability (Disease burden, soil fertility, temperature, precipitation…) and closely matches the distribution of world population density.

    It all makes sense without evolutionary just-so stories.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Singapore was unpopulated when the British got permission to make it their turf. The local Malay rulers were 'tak apa' about the whole deal. Singapore's success is due to British systems and Chinese intelligence and work ethic.

    This is absolutely the exact same dynamic playing out in Malaysia, except that the economic success is lesser because the Chinese represent a much smaller percentage of the population and the Malays have monopolised the government and run it in their typical lackluster style. For further comparison, compare development along the Chinese-intensive areas of peninsular Malaysia like Penang Island and Malacca, with Malay-dominated regions like Perlis and Terengganu.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. If people were crops, where would they be best planted?


    Or before widespread modern medicine

    Read More
    • Replies: @Afrosapiens
    Or better yet.
    https://ourworldindata.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/world-maps-of-population-density-over-the-last-5000-years-goldewijk-beusen-and-janssen-2010.png
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. @Afrosapiens

    If people were crops, where would they be best planted?
     
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b9/Population_density_with_key.png/450px-Population_density_with_key.png

    Or before widespread modern medicine
    https://i.pinimg.com/originals/28/be/ae/28beae6e27fcac9d6f4d5298fd80b274.jpg

    Or better yet.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Afrosapiens
    Since we're talking about crops


    Agricultural suitability:
    http://www.nestle.com/asset-library/publishingimages/csv/rural_development/diagram-croplands-highres.jpg

    Soil fertility:
    http://i.imgur.com/rhA51Jp.jpg
    , @songbird
    I would question that early distribution in the proximal area of Germany. Could be a wrong interpretation, but I've heard the Roman era Germans described as being somewhat similar to age of contact Native Americans. Living mostly in heavily forested areas and sowing snatch crops.

    I think that would be close to a certainty before 1000 BC. Old growth oak trees in harsh winter climates can probably only be cut by iron, not bronze.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. @Afrosapiens
    Or better yet.
    https://ourworldindata.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/world-maps-of-population-density-over-the-last-5000-years-goldewijk-beusen-and-janssen-2010.png

    Since we’re talking about crops

    Agricultural suitability:

    Soil fertility:

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. Averaging biomes for large countries with multiple biomes like South Africa, and most especially China, will likely prove problematic. China’s population, for instance is located on the east coast amidst largely temperate biomes, even while a great proportion of its interior is desert.

    And lol, seeing how high desert environments I ranked, I’m thinking those simple minded authors counted middle eastern and north African countries as deserts. That’s retarded.

    -The Maghreb is mostly desert, but the population is concentrated on the coastal areas that enjoy a Mediterranean climate, same applies to the Levant.

    -Egypt and Sudan as well as Mesopotamia are mostly desert, but the population lives on the banks of the Nile, the Euphrates and the Tigris, which are cooler wetlands

    -Arabia is mostly desert, but most of the population lives in the highlands of Hejaz and Yemen. Plus the gulf states have large numbers of non-Arab immigrants.

    This is trash research as usual.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  7. Mactoul says:

    If people were crops, where would they be best planted?

    To be optimized for quantity i.e. population–then China and India are the best historically and currently.
    If optimized for quality aka IQ, then temperate lands win.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  8. Someone says:

    Good soil > Agriculture > Sedentary life > Dense Population > Higher degree of Outlier IQs (both lower and higher ones) > Selection.
    But then, of the 3 lifestyles of the post-Ice Age, Hunting/Gathering, Agriculture and Pastoralism, Pastoralism was also incredibly succesful in different stances, more even than Agriculture or on par/competing. Why? Well, people are starting to speculate that Pastoralism was a richer lifestyle commoditie-wise and commercialy-wise, and that’s why the people who adopted it were as sucesful, smart and whatever else as Agriculturalists.
    Wouldn’t this break the Geography model?

    Reality is: Selection is everything, and the lifestyle a people have (based, influenced or whatever by the Geography/Environment they live) drives the selection of the group – to favour intelligence, stay neutral to it or neglect it.

    Everyone who has traveled the world, had pets, children, worked in a “diverse” place can pinpoint perfectly that Genetics is everything.
    But then, why these Genetics ended up that way? Something external must have guided it to the way it is today – a slow, multi-generational process.
    So yes, externalities matter for different selections, but they matter for what has already been selected? Say, you? What you are? No.
    They will matter for the future generations, who may or may not carry “you” in them.
    I don’t know if I made myself clear but that’s it.

    Read More
    • Agree: CanSpeccy
    • Disagree: Afrosapiens
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  9. “Geography has somewhat lapsed in popularity as a discipline.”

    Some of that IMHO is down to “Human Geography” becoming a much more salient part of the curriculum. Now obviously land use and human impacts (dredging/embankment of rivers, desertification, deforestation etc) rightly belongs there. But what about these, from June 2016 A level papers?

    Option 6 – Contemporary Conflicts and Challenges

    Figure 6a shows the location of Crimea within its regional setting. Figure 6b offers some key information about Crimea up to 2014.

    Using Figures 6a and 6b comment on the basis of the conflict in Crimea.[7 marks]

    Describe the environmental and economic issues associated with one international conflict that you have studied.[8 marks]

    Discuss the reasons for, and consequences of, separatism.[10 marks]

    Discuss the issues associated with the development of multicultural societies in the UK.[40 marks]

    3 (b)In relation to the concerns set out in Item 6, discuss how the regulation of fracking could be improved.[10 marks]

    (and absent from Figure 6b is the really important geopolitical information that the Crimea is where the Black Sea Fleet is based). Bring back the oxbow lake and the Continental Climate !

    The good news is that geology is almost untouched by this tendency.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  10. m___ says:

    Magnum effort, way beyond my first superficial comprehension.

    One remark though, a mega one, not specific to the article, as broad-raking as is.

    “The differences in IQ between individuals is on a scale major to differences in groups. More complex, dynamic societies as over the last two hundred years, will find value and pertinence first in mining individual IQ talents.

    The group differences planetary, will have no longer the same pertinent impact, certainly not on modern timescales, dozens of years, as compared to centuries and dozens of generations.

    All other factors will abide by these superior IQ ‘compensations’ as a first.”

    This impressive research is probably of historical value only, which is in itself a layer of further comprehension of course, but the results will probably not point into the future consequently. Said otherwise, as a tool for prediction it might fail.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  11. Why the Unz mania for this intelligence stuff? This is utterly devoid of any scientific merit and all proceeds from wanting to confirm a belief. Ir’s on a par with Birtherism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Better this than the endless stream of anti-semitic articles. The sad part is the the owner of this site is jewish himself (if i remember correctly ) and he is unwittingly making some people here anti-semitic by publishing articles that make people 'hate' jewish people.
    , @Santoculto
    Social ''justiss'' MANIA...
    , @Anon
    Go back to tumblr and then attend your White Guilt class.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. JimH says:

    I can see the usual Northern Hemisphere bias in a lot of this. The fact is there are a lot of places other than Eurasia that have either cold winters and/or winters when you can’t grow anything. New Zealand gets snow, southern Africa has 6 months of the year with no rain at all (Mar-Sep), Argentina has both; and yet the locals never even thought of the wheel. S America and Australasia didn’t even have iron.

    Added to that is, the tech and political systems all developed either in the dry subtropics (fertile crescent) or the Mediterranean.

    It’s the genes, stupid!

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    I am unsure of the Inca, but the Maya didn't use the wheel for transportation since it wasn't conducive to their city state layouts. They knew of the wheel and its use, however, since they made children's toys with wheels. It's also worth noting that the Maya used the concept of "0" without outside influence as well.

    It's worth noting that civilization popped up independently in a few places, with the Maya being one of them. Writing was also only invented without influence in five areas: Meso America (the Maya), the Chinese, the Sumerians, the Harrapan, and the Egyptians.

    So yea, peoples can understand a concept of something without using it in their society due to their environment/city layout. I wouldn't attribute this to genes. Because if you're going on just where things were invented, you're going to have a bad time.


    Added to that is, the tech and political systems all developed either in the dry subtropics (fertile crescent) or the Mediterranean.
     
    Which is why civilization only popped up in areas with the right climate that could sustain large populations with food production. Areas like this are where writing was invented independently without any outside influence.
    , @Hu Mi Yu

    (Argentine) locals never even thought of the wheel. S America and Australasia didn’t even have iron.
     
    Wheels are not much use without roads and fairly level terrain. S. America developed more than its share of food crops. I can't imagine what European food was like before they had potatoes and tomatoes. Rice came from China along with many high-tech inventions such as iron, rockets, and gun powder.

    Added to that is, the tech and political systems all developed either in the dry subtropics (fertile crescent) or the Mediterranean.
     
    That is the semitic view of civilization with the Bible being the world's oldest book etc etc. Modern archaeology contradicts this. Comparably old developed societies were located in India and China and probably other places as well.
    , @hyperbola
    Ancient Mound Excavation in Peru Leads to Groundbreaking Discovery of Advanced Civilization Dating Back 15,000 Years
    http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/ancient-mound-excavation-peru-leads-groundbreaking-discovery-advanced-021407?nopaging=1

    Hundreds of thousands of artifacts dating back as early as 15,000 years have been found at the ancient mound site of Huaca Prieta in Peru. The relics include elaborate hand-woven baskets and tools for deep-sea fishing, which would have necessitated the use of boats that could withstand rough waters, as well as evidence of large-scaled agricultural production and trade. The findings indicate that an early civilization existed in the region which was much more advanced than originally thought.
    "The mounds of artifacts retrieved from Huaca Prieta include food remains, stone tools and other cultural features such as ornate baskets and textiles, which really raise questions about the pace of the development of early humans in that region and their level of knowledge and the technology they used to exploit resources from both the land and the sea," James M. Adovasio, Ph.D., D.Sc., co-author of the study and archaeologist at Florida Atlantic University told Phys.org. “These strings of events that we have uncovered demonstrate that these people had a remarkable capacity to utilize different types of food resources, which led to a larger society size and everything that goes along with it such as the emergence of bureaucracy and highly organized religion.”.....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. Extreme climates more than increase it limitates …. creativity, what we are really talking about, [increasing of intelligence at point to also increase higher creativity]. So, too dry, too cold or too hot, and it’s likely that instead a challenge to increase intelligence [and creativity], to win the environment, this harsh conditions will force living beings to maximize their adaptations = reduction of phenotypical variability as well superlativities; increase of pragmatic adaptative approach.

    Maybe it’s not:

    humans were exposed to cold regions and became smarter but firstly, how they got there* During this expansion to polar regions, humans becoming smarter/aka self-controlled while when this expansion was limited for harsh climate they stoped to increase their intelligence.

    Even seems interesting to compare how fitted climates/biomas tend to be with personality types. ”equatorial personality”…

    bad grammar,
    still breathe…

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88

    humans were exposed to cold regions and became smarter
     
    No they didn't.

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/unique-everybody-else/201211/cold-winters-and-the-evolution-intelligence
    , @RaceRealist88
    It's also worth noting that saying cold winter increased intelligence is the post hoc, ergo proper hoc fallacy.

    "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc is a Latin phrase for "after this, therefore, because of this." The term refers to a logical fallacy that because two events occurred in succession, the former event caused the latter event.[1][2]

    In addressing a post hoc, ergo propter hoc argument, it is important to recognise that correlation does not equal causation.
    Magical thinking is a form of post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy, in which superstitions are formed based on seeing patterns in a series of coincidences. For example, "these are my lucky trousers. Sometimes good things happen to me when I wear them."
     
    Here is the form of the argument:

    "Form of the argument[edit]
    P1: X happened before Y.
    P2: (unstated) Y was caused by something (that happened before Y).
    C1: Therefore, X caused Y."
     
    It's a pretty huge fallacy. Sure it's a fancy way of saying 'correlation doesn't equal causation", but, as you can see, the line of reasoning is logically fallacious.
    , @Okechukwu

    humans were exposed to cold regions and became smarter
     
    That's a cute theory but it's at variance with the actual evidence. You know, evidence.

    During this expansion to polar regions, humans becoming smarter/aka self-controlled while when this expansion was limited for harsh climate they stoped to increase their intelligence.
     
    Humans only migrated when conditions became salubrious. The northern hemisphere then like now can get unbearably hot in summer. Then like now it was temperate, lush and green with nearly every square inch cultivable, grazable or forested. Winter snowfall actually stores moisture crops need for the growing season.
    , @Anonymous
    Hot and cold is not the same.

    Excess heat is only a mortal threat in the absence of water and so is not a threat at all in many hot countries. It is still a massive evolutionary guide though as it encourages minimal heat generation and hence minimal energy expenditure. In tropical climates, planning for the future is detrimental since there will always be some kind of fruit in season and the best way to keep operating in the oppressive heat is to think as little as possible.

    Cold kills. Through exposure and through starvation. In climates where cold is a treat, thinking of ways to store food and avoid exposure is essential to survival.

    Too hot -> more stupid
    Too cold -> more intelligent
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. @JimH
    I can see the usual Northern Hemisphere bias in a lot of this. The fact is there are a lot of places other than Eurasia that have either cold winters and/or winters when you can't grow anything. New Zealand gets snow, southern Africa has 6 months of the year with no rain at all (Mar-Sep), Argentina has both; and yet the locals never even thought of the wheel. S America and Australasia didn't even have iron.

    Added to that is, the tech and political systems all developed either in the dry subtropics (fertile crescent) or the Mediterranean.

    It's the genes, stupid!

    I am unsure of the Inca, but the Maya didn’t use the wheel for transportation since it wasn’t conducive to their city state layouts. They knew of the wheel and its use, however, since they made children’s toys with wheels. It’s also worth noting that the Maya used the concept of “0″ without outside influence as well.

    It’s worth noting that civilization popped up independently in a few places, with the Maya being one of them. Writing was also only invented without influence in five areas: Meso America (the Maya), the Chinese, the Sumerians, the Harrapan, and the Egyptians.

    So yea, peoples can understand a concept of something without using it in their society due to their environment/city layout. I wouldn’t attribute this to genes. Because if you’re going on just where things were invented, you’re going to have a bad time.

    Added to that is, the tech and political systems all developed either in the dry subtropics (fertile crescent) or the Mediterranean.

    Which is why civilization only popped up in areas with the right climate that could sustain large populations with food production. Areas like this are where writing was invented independently without any outside influence.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Afrosapiens
    They also fall for the fallacy of single cause:

    The fallacy of the single cause, also known as complex cause, causal oversimplification, causal reductionism, and reduction fallacy,[1] is a fallacy of questionable cause that occurs when it is assumed that there is a single, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_single_cause


    Simply torturing data and cherry-picking variables to confirm their already made conclusions.

    In this article, the funny thing is that they use biomes as the variable and biome is closely related to race to the point that they're basicallyinterchangeable. Then they calculate the correlation between biomes and racially biased and therefore biome biased IQ estimates.

    Mr Thompson, why don't you address the many stronger correlates of IQ like education or disease?
    , @Jim
    The first writing in Mesoamerica is Olmec writing not Mayan. Olmec culture seems somewhat similar to Mayan but because the Olmec writing has never been deciphered who are not sure what their exact relation to the Maya was. Most other Mesoamerican cultures other than the Maya and Olmec also had writing.

    There is some evidence that Egyptian writing was derived from Mesopotamian writing and also that writing in China may have come from the west.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. @Santoculto
    Extreme climates more than increase it limitates .... creativity, what we are really talking about, [increasing of intelligence at point to also increase higher creativity]. So, too dry, too cold or too hot, and it's likely that instead a challenge to increase intelligence [and creativity], to win the environment, this harsh conditions will force living beings to maximize their adaptations = reduction of phenotypical variability as well superlativities; increase of pragmatic adaptative approach.

    Maybe it's not:

    humans were exposed to cold regions and became smarter but firstly, how they got there* During this expansion to polar regions, humans becoming smarter/aka self-controlled while when this expansion was limited for harsh climate they stoped to increase their intelligence.

    Even seems interesting to compare how fitted climates/biomas tend to be with personality types. ''equatorial personality''...


    bad grammar,
    still breathe...

    humans were exposed to cold regions and became smarter

    No they didn’t.

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/unique-everybody-else/201211/cold-winters-and-the-evolution-intelligence

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    I don't said this, read again what i wrote.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. The government is spraying toxic chemicals into the skies of America and the world known as chemtrails and this spray is composed of nano aluminum and barium and strontium , etc. and is going into the air we breathe and the soil we grow our crops in and the water we drink.

    This is weather control on steroids and the gov is using HAARP and LASERS to heat the atmosphere and to guide storms ie hurricanes and tornados which they did in the recent ones in Texas and Florida and Porte Rico and they have been doing this for decades, but recently have gone all out on this weather control agenda to achieve their goal of global warming as per UN AGENDA 21 and the deindustrialization of America.

    The aluminum in the chemtrails is toxic to humans and goes every aspect of our life ie air, water and soil and is poisoning each of these and we the people who are on earth.

    For details on this see GEOENGINEERING WATCH.ORG

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88

    known as chemtrails
     
    Chemtrails are bullshit.

    http://retractionwatch.com/2015/09/03/paper-on-chemtrails-a-favorite-subject-of-conspiracy-theorists-retracted/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. @DESERT FOX
    The government is spraying toxic chemicals into the skies of America and the world known as chemtrails and this spray is composed of nano aluminum and barium and strontium , etc. and is going into the air we breathe and the soil we grow our crops in and the water we drink.

    This is weather control on steroids and the gov is using HAARP and LASERS to heat the atmosphere and to guide storms ie hurricanes and tornados which they did in the recent ones in Texas and Florida and Porte Rico and they have been doing this for decades, but recently have gone all out on this weather control agenda to achieve their goal of global warming as per UN AGENDA 21 and the deindustrialization of America.

    The aluminum in the chemtrails is toxic to humans and goes every aspect of our life ie air, water and soil and is poisoning each of these and we the people who are on earth.

    For details on this see GEOENGINEERING WATCH.ORG
    Read More
    • Agree: Pat Boyle
    • Replies: @DESERT FOX
    Look up at the sky and see those planes spraying white lines across the sky and making giant X and tic tac toe grids across the sky , etc. and these planes are configured just like the planes that sprayed AGENT ORANGE over the jungles of Vietnam and all the people of Vietnam and our troops.

    I have personally witnessed this chemtrail spraying here in Montana for 30 years and again yesterday this spraying turned a blue sky into a haze of white streaks by noon from the dozen or more planes that were spraying and this spray is affecting not only our air but the water and the soil and the plants and trees.

    Read the book ANGELS DONT PLAY THIS HAARP by Nick Begich , it can be had on amazon.com.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @JimH
    I can see the usual Northern Hemisphere bias in a lot of this. The fact is there are a lot of places other than Eurasia that have either cold winters and/or winters when you can't grow anything. New Zealand gets snow, southern Africa has 6 months of the year with no rain at all (Mar-Sep), Argentina has both; and yet the locals never even thought of the wheel. S America and Australasia didn't even have iron.

    Added to that is, the tech and political systems all developed either in the dry subtropics (fertile crescent) or the Mediterranean.

    It's the genes, stupid!

    (Argentine) locals never even thought of the wheel. S America and Australasia didn’t even have iron.

    Wheels are not much use without roads and fairly level terrain. S. America developed more than its share of food crops. I can’t imagine what European food was like before they had potatoes and tomatoes. Rice came from China along with many high-tech inventions such as iron, rockets, and gun powder.

    Added to that is, the tech and political systems all developed either in the dry subtropics (fertile crescent) or the Mediterranean.

    That is the semitic view of civilization with the Bible being the world’s oldest book etc etc. Modern archaeology contradicts this. Comparably old developed societies were located in India and China and probably other places as well.

    Read More
    • Agree: RaceRealist88
    • Replies: @szopen
    DO you sugges.t that _iron came to Europe from China_?

    First wheeled vehicles seem to be from northern Europe, though
    , @Pat Boyle
    The Chinese did not develop gun powder. There is a well defined Gunpowder Revolution that describes when what we call black powder was first used effectively in militarily useful guns. It occurred in France and Germany in the fifteenth century. There were many separate stages to the development of effective gunpowder including corning.

    When gun powder and guns were used in the invasion of Italy by Charles VIII, all existing fortifications were instantly obsolete. Within a few years military architects created a whole new form of polygonal fortification. No high thin wall could withstand a gun. This revolution swept to the east only reaching China much later.

    People who like to think China invented gunpowder have sloppy thought processes. We celebrate an inventor when he has added the final piece that makes his invention useful. We do not attribute an invention to the first one who worked with it. If we did that we would attribute the electric light not to Edison but some early glass blower.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. songbird says:
    @Afrosapiens
    Or better yet.
    https://ourworldindata.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/world-maps-of-population-density-over-the-last-5000-years-goldewijk-beusen-and-janssen-2010.png

    I would question that early distribution in the proximal area of Germany. Could be a wrong interpretation, but I’ve heard the Roman era Germans described as being somewhat similar to age of contact Native Americans. Living mostly in heavily forested areas and sowing snatch crops.

    I think that would be close to a certainty before 1000 BC. Old growth oak trees in harsh winter climates can probably only be cut by iron, not bronze.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Afrosapiens

    Could be a wrong interpretation, but I’ve heard the Roman era Germans described as being somewhat similar to age of contact Native Americans.
     
    If you're referring to the Natives of the United States, I think ancient Celtic and Germanic peoples were more advanced than Native Americans, they were closer to West Africans, they had metal-working, larger settlements, more complex political organizations and I'd subjectively rate their artifacts as more advanced.

    But, the dense tree cover of the northern half of Europe must have prevented further development until the large scale deforestation during the Middle Ages.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. @RaceRealist88

    known as chemtrails
     
    Chemtrails are bullshit.

    http://retractionwatch.com/2015/09/03/paper-on-chemtrails-a-favorite-subject-of-conspiracy-theorists-retracted/

    Look up at the sky and see those planes spraying white lines across the sky and making giant X and tic tac toe grids across the sky , etc. and these planes are configured just like the planes that sprayed AGENT ORANGE over the jungles of Vietnam and all the people of Vietnam and our troops.

    I have personally witnessed this chemtrail spraying here in Montana for 30 years and again yesterday this spraying turned a blue sky into a haze of white streaks by noon from the dozen or more planes that were spraying and this spray is affecting not only our air but the water and the soil and the plants and trees.

    Read the book ANGELS DONT PLAY THIS HAARP by Nick Begich , it can be had on amazon.com.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chinookwind
    These chemtrails are definitely real and " they" are doing it. I've never considered the angle of dumbing people down though , that's a new one. I wouldn't put it past them . I always figured chemtrails were for reducing solar gain.
    There is definitely evil involved. It's the 21st century and we're still talking about evil.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. songbird says:

    I think a lot of people don’t realize how important farming was. What opened my eyes is the molecular clock on of the sickle cell mutation: about 7300 years ago. One theory is that people could not be infected by malaria for a long time, but that would still leave a large pre-farming window.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  22. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    That Hertler guy, is sound on forest ecology.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  23. @Santoculto
    Extreme climates more than increase it limitates .... creativity, what we are really talking about, [increasing of intelligence at point to also increase higher creativity]. So, too dry, too cold or too hot, and it's likely that instead a challenge to increase intelligence [and creativity], to win the environment, this harsh conditions will force living beings to maximize their adaptations = reduction of phenotypical variability as well superlativities; increase of pragmatic adaptative approach.

    Maybe it's not:

    humans were exposed to cold regions and became smarter but firstly, how they got there* During this expansion to polar regions, humans becoming smarter/aka self-controlled while when this expansion was limited for harsh climate they stoped to increase their intelligence.

    Even seems interesting to compare how fitted climates/biomas tend to be with personality types. ''equatorial personality''...


    bad grammar,
    still breathe...

    It’s also worth noting that saying cold winter increased intelligence is the post hoc, ergo proper hoc fallacy.

    “Post hoc, ergo propter hoc is a Latin phrase for “after this, therefore, because of this.” The term refers to a logical fallacy that because two events occurred in succession, the former event caused the latter event.[1][2]

    In addressing a post hoc, ergo propter hoc argument, it is important to recognise that correlation does not equal causation.
    Magical thinking is a form of post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy, in which superstitions are formed based on seeing patterns in a series of coincidences. For example, “these are my lucky trousers. Sometimes good things happen to me when I wear them.”

    Here is the form of the argument:

    “Form of the argument[edit]
    P1: X happened before Y.
    P2: (unstated) Y was caused by something (that happened before Y).
    C1: Therefore, X caused Y.”

    It’s a pretty huge fallacy. Sure it’s a fancy way of saying ‘correlation doesn’t equal causation”, but, as you can see, the line of reasoning is logically fallacious.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    You might like to consider Woodley's comments on this.
    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/woodley-elaborates
    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-woodley-challenge
    , @Santoculto
    Before you repeat this again try to understand what I wrote... And reply based on my statements and not by half of sentence you misunderstood.
    , @Pat Boyle
    You are patronizing the readership. Most of us took Latin in school and many of us took formal logic.

    You have not caught anyone in a terrible embarrassing error because there is "the arrow of time." Causes do indeed precede effects. So all a putative causes will first of all need to precede its observed effect. Things that go backwards in time are only in Science Fiction and some parts of Theoretical Physics that I don't understand.

    The fallacy part is when you assume that you have proven causality when you merely demonstrate precedence. No one is doing that here.

    The 'cold winter makes intelligence' hypothesis is just that - a hypothesis, and one that I think is likely wrong. It seems simplistic and wrong to me but it isn't a fallacy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. songbird says:

    I think cold selection is plausible in many ways, but it doesn’t work well as an overarching theory, particularly if you take the Ice Age as your major selective pressure. That would have given the genes a long opportunity to spread. I think at the very least, there are forces which have selected against higher intelligence in certain areas.

    It is more than likely that there were a lot of different selective pressures. Several positive and several negative. And soil type has got to be near the top of the list.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  25. @RaceRealist88
    It's also worth noting that saying cold winter increased intelligence is the post hoc, ergo proper hoc fallacy.

    "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc is a Latin phrase for "after this, therefore, because of this." The term refers to a logical fallacy that because two events occurred in succession, the former event caused the latter event.[1][2]

    In addressing a post hoc, ergo propter hoc argument, it is important to recognise that correlation does not equal causation.
    Magical thinking is a form of post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy, in which superstitions are formed based on seeing patterns in a series of coincidences. For example, "these are my lucky trousers. Sometimes good things happen to me when I wear them."
     
    Here is the form of the argument:

    "Form of the argument[edit]
    P1: X happened before Y.
    P2: (unstated) Y was caused by something (that happened before Y).
    C1: Therefore, X caused Y."
     
    It's a pretty huge fallacy. Sure it's a fancy way of saying 'correlation doesn't equal causation", but, as you can see, the line of reasoning is logically fallacious.
    Read More
    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    Who's the originator of "correlation may not be causation, but it's the way to bet"?

    Is it a Sailerism?

    , @RaceRealist88
    Thanks for the links.

    That doesn't change the fallacious reasoning though. Just because X happened before Y doesn't not prove Z (this instance variable X being cold winter, Y being brain size increase and Z being an increase in IQ due to cold winter and brain size increase), that's the fallacious reasoning.

    It's also worth noting that social competition has a higher correlation with intelligence/brain size than temperature does. Couple that with disease/parasite burden (which also has a higher correlation than temperature and distance from the savanna, see Eppig et al's papers) and you'll see that temperature theories for the intelligent increase do not make sense.

    There is a correlation between Haley's comet appearance and ice cream sales. Which causes which? There is also a correlation between ice cream sales and murder. Crime does increase when it gets hotter out but only to a point, and begins decreasing as it gets too hot.

    I don't think that temperature explains IQ differences, I believe differences in brain size reflects differences in tool use/making and capacity for expertise.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/03/14/brain-size-increased-for-expertise-capacity-not-iq/
    , @simplyamazed
    There certainly are examples of correlation without causation. Take smoking. There is a strong correlation but the cause of cancer is an oncogene that, over time, can be activated by, amongst other things, tobacco smoking. Smoking merely increases the chances that the causal element will be activated.

    The question really is not whether there is some correlation, however weak, but whether there is a sufficiently strong correlation that it is worthwhile investigating a causal link.

    Correlation also depends on the structure of the sample used to look for correlation. Here is an interesting example from the website http://www.christopherspenn.com/2014/11/causation-can-exist-without-correlation/

    "One of the assumptions that lots of folks (including myself) have at a certain point in statistics is that while correlation does not equal causation, causation cannot exist without correlation. However, it turns out that this isn’t true. Causation can exist without correlation!

    "How is this possible, when a relationship would seem to be mandatory in order for a causal relationship to be present? It’s deceptively simple, and boils down to how you select data. Let’s take a fictitious example; let’s say that I worked for an alcohol company, and I wanted to prove that alcohol does not cause motor vehicle fatalities. For clarity’s sake, neither are true – I don’t work for an alcohol company, and driving while intoxicated is blatantly unsafe. Don’t do it.

    "If I were to do a correlation of a random, representative sampling of people, some of whom drank alcohol and operated a vehicle unsafely, and some of whom did not, you would indeed see that there’s a strong relationship between alcohol consumption and vehicular fatalities. That would seem to indicate that correlation was mandatory in order for there to be causation.

    "But suppose I restricted my “study” to people who were, in my inexpert opinion, most likely to drive drunk. Suppose I focused it only on people who had 10 or more drinks per day? What you might find would be a negative correlation, that in fact, the more you drink, the less likely it is you’ll die from drunk driving, and therefore driving while drunk must be safe. What’s really happening among that population of super-heavy drinkers? They’re likely dying of causes other than drunk driving. At 10+ drinks a day, that’s not too hard to imagine.

    "The reality is that by selecting a population with no variation – that is, no one in the study did NOT drink – you can create distortions in your data that can “prove” your point, even though they’re statistically invalid. We know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that drinking alcohol does cause an increase in vehicular deaths, but the data can be manipulated to “prove” otherwise."
    , @Afrosapiens

    A famous example is yam production and national IQ, which across countries correlate negatively. It would be wrong to say that yam production somehow inhibits IQ, as the association will in fact turn out to be mediated by something like temperature and latitude.
     
    Or disease burden! Duh.

    The ideology is just too strong.

    Contrary to temperature and latitude, there is empirical evidence for the relationship between parasitic and infectious disease and IQ, as well as a stronger correlation between the two.

    Yes obviously causation requires correlation, but causation is confirmed by empirically testing, not by statistical adjustments that make a correlation stronger without proving stronger causation.
    , @res
    Thanks for the additional links.

    In your first link a number of people mentioned Pearl but possibly without enough detail to follow up. The reference is to Judea Pearl whose best known work in this area is https://www.amazon.com/Causality-Reasoning-Inference-Judea-Pearl/dp/052189560X
    Here is a 50 page overview of Causal inference in statistics he published in 2009 (also known as R-350): https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.ssu/1255440554

    Timothy Bates' comment 9 there also mentioned Eysenck and Fisher in this context. Can anyone recommend particular works of theirs covering causality?

    Regarding the challenge in your second link:

    “Sure, correlation does not equal causation, but find me just one single instance of a causal relationship where there is no correlation (just one would suffice).”

    As befits a challenge, I will be offering the traditional bottle of wine to the best instance. Woodley judges, I arbitrate if required, and provide the bottle of wine.
     
    For a simple contrived example just use any purely quadratic relationship across a range covering negative and positive numbers equally. For example, y = x^2 over integers [-2, 2]. Looking at a relationship which is strongly quadratic with Z-score might prove fruitful as an example.

    For a somewhat less contrived example consider the relationship of acceleration and velocity. Looking at a series of positive and negative accelerations over time (netting to roughly 0 final velocity and covering both + and - v). I saw a correlation of -0.07. I don't have the patience to reduce that to essentially 0, but I am pretty sure it is possible.

    There is another slightly more real world example (which relies on an unobserved intermediate variable) at the bottom of https://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/causation-without-correlation-is-possible/

    I don't think any of those are bottle of wine worthy though. Did anyone give you a serious contender?

    I suspect an example exists in the genome of a trait/SNP combination which has near zero linear effect (correlation of # alleles with trait) but has some quadratic effect (is causal). Speculation primarily based on the likelihood of strange cases given the number of possibilities. But one in a million or more chances don't really disprove Woodley's point.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. @James Thompson
    You might like to consider Woodley's comments on this.
    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/woodley-elaborates
    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-woodley-challenge

    Who’s the originator of “correlation may not be causation, but it’s the way to bet“?

    Is it a Sailerism?

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    Not sure, but I can recall a commentator on my previous blog using it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. @James Thompson
    You might like to consider Woodley's comments on this.
    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/woodley-elaborates
    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-woodley-challenge

    Thanks for the links.

    That doesn’t change the fallacious reasoning though. Just because X happened before Y doesn’t not prove Z (this instance variable X being cold winter, Y being brain size increase and Z being an increase in IQ due to cold winter and brain size increase), that’s the fallacious reasoning.

    It’s also worth noting that social competition has a higher correlation with intelligence/brain size than temperature does. Couple that with disease/parasite burden (which also has a higher correlation than temperature and distance from the savanna, see Eppig et al’s papers) and you’ll see that temperature theories for the intelligent increase do not make sense.

    There is a correlation between Haley’s comet appearance and ice cream sales. Which causes which? There is also a correlation between ice cream sales and murder. Crime does increase when it gets hotter out but only to a point, and begins decreasing as it gets too hot.

    I don’t think that temperature explains IQ differences, I believe differences in brain size reflects differences in tool use/making and capacity for expertise.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/03/14/brain-size-increased-for-expertise-capacity-not-iq/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. @songbird
    I would question that early distribution in the proximal area of Germany. Could be a wrong interpretation, but I've heard the Roman era Germans described as being somewhat similar to age of contact Native Americans. Living mostly in heavily forested areas and sowing snatch crops.

    I think that would be close to a certainty before 1000 BC. Old growth oak trees in harsh winter climates can probably only be cut by iron, not bronze.

    Could be a wrong interpretation, but I’ve heard the Roman era Germans described as being somewhat similar to age of contact Native Americans.

    If you’re referring to the Natives of the United States, I think ancient Celtic and Germanic peoples were more advanced than Native Americans, they were closer to West Africans, they had metal-working, larger settlements, more complex political organizations and I’d subjectively rate their artifacts as more advanced.

    But, the dense tree cover of the northern half of Europe must have prevented further development until the large scale deforestation during the Middle Ages.

    Read More
    • Replies: @songbird
    That's right: US Native Americans. No arguments that the Germans were not significantly more advanced. I mean more purely in the sense of population density. I would suppose ancient Germany was a very volatile area too. Probably lots of warfare, which would maybe keep numbers lower than on a peninsula or island.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. @James Thompson
    You might like to consider Woodley's comments on this.
    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/woodley-elaborates
    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-woodley-challenge

    There certainly are examples of correlation without causation. Take smoking. There is a strong correlation but the cause of cancer is an oncogene that, over time, can be activated by, amongst other things, tobacco smoking. Smoking merely increases the chances that the causal element will be activated.

    The question really is not whether there is some correlation, however weak, but whether there is a sufficiently strong correlation that it is worthwhile investigating a causal link.

    Correlation also depends on the structure of the sample used to look for correlation. Here is an interesting example from the website http://www.christopherspenn.com/2014/11/causation-can-exist-without-correlation/

    “One of the assumptions that lots of folks (including myself) have at a certain point in statistics is that while correlation does not equal causation, causation cannot exist without correlation. However, it turns out that this isn’t true. Causation can exist without correlation!

    “How is this possible, when a relationship would seem to be mandatory in order for a causal relationship to be present? It’s deceptively simple, and boils down to how you select data. Let’s take a fictitious example; let’s say that I worked for an alcohol company, and I wanted to prove that alcohol does not cause motor vehicle fatalities. For clarity’s sake, neither are true – I don’t work for an alcohol company, and driving while intoxicated is blatantly unsafe. Don’t do it.

    “If I were to do a correlation of a random, representative sampling of people, some of whom drank alcohol and operated a vehicle unsafely, and some of whom did not, you would indeed see that there’s a strong relationship between alcohol consumption and vehicular fatalities. That would seem to indicate that correlation was mandatory in order for there to be causation.

    “But suppose I restricted my “study” to people who were, in my inexpert opinion, most likely to drive drunk. Suppose I focused it only on people who had 10 or more drinks per day? What you might find would be a negative correlation, that in fact, the more you drink, the less likely it is you’ll die from drunk driving, and therefore driving while drunk must be safe. What’s really happening among that population of super-heavy drinkers? They’re likely dying of causes other than drunk driving. At 10+ drinks a day, that’s not too hard to imagine.

    “The reality is that by selecting a population with no variation – that is, no one in the study did NOT drink – you can create distortions in your data that can “prove” your point, even though they’re statistically invalid. We know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that drinking alcohol does cause an increase in vehicular deaths, but the data can be manipulated to “prove” otherwise.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson


    There certainly are examples of correlation without causation. Take smoking. There is a strong correlation but the cause of cancer is an oncogene that, over time, can be activated by, amongst other things, tobacco smoking. Smoking merely increases the chances that the causal element will be activated.

     

    Merely?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. @James Thompson
    You might like to consider Woodley's comments on this.
    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/woodley-elaborates
    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-woodley-challenge

    A famous example is yam production and national IQ, which across countries correlate negatively. It would be wrong to say that yam production somehow inhibits IQ, as the association will in fact turn out to be mediated by something like temperature and latitude.

    Or disease burden! Duh.

    The ideology is just too strong.

    Contrary to temperature and latitude, there is empirical evidence for the relationship between parasitic and infectious disease and IQ, as well as a stronger correlation between the two.

    Yes obviously causation requires correlation, but causation is confirmed by empirically testing, not by statistical adjustments that make a correlation stronger without proving stronger causation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Here is a mathematical proof put forward by Michael Lamar, Assistant Professor of Statistics at the link: https://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-examples-of-causation-without-correlation

    Let X and Y be independent Bernoulli random variables with parameter 0.5. In other words, each is equally likely to be zero or one independently of the other.

    Now let Z=1
    if X=Y and let Z=0 if X≠Y. It shouldn’t take long to figure out that Z is also equally likely to be zero and one. But even though Z’s value is explicitly determined based on the value of X and Y, it turns out that Z is independent of each. To see why, for x∈{0,1}, we find that: P(Z=1|X=x)=P(X=Y|X=x)=P(Y=x|X=x)=P(Y=x)=0.5=P(Z=1)

    So the conditional distribution of Z
    given X is the same as the unconditional distribution of Z. So Z and X are independent (and thus uncorrelated). Similarly, Z and Y are independent (and thus uncorrelated). But clearly X and Y cause Z in the strongest sense of causation since the value of Z is completely determined by whether or not X and Y match.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    It is an interesting mathematical construction but I do not think that it is of much practical consequence.

    In order to talk about correlation between X and Y both variables must have some representation in real numbers. In order to talk about causal relationship X-->Y it means that there must exist some function that maps X to Y, i.e., the value of X determines the value of Y. It is very easy to construct functions that produce zero correlation. In fact all periodic functions will do it, say Y=sin(X) if X varies over large number of periods. Periodic functions are not 1-to-1. Not all 1-to-1 functions produce non-zero correlation. However if we impose constraint that the function must be also monotonic, say increasing that if X1<X2 then f(X1)<f(X2) then certainly correlation will be non-zero. Monotonicity is a very reasonable and broad assumption.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. As a gardener I find the info on rainforest soil dynamics interesting. Not totally surprised though.

    Ecologically speaking burning down the rainforest isn’t the end of it. Eventually the decay of those low nutrient grasses will allow a succession of plants to build back up the forest. May take thousands of years by natural processes though.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  33. @YetAnotherAnon
    Who's the originator of "correlation may not be causation, but it's the way to bet"?

    Is it a Sailerism?

    Not sure, but I can recall a commentator on my previous blog using it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. @simplyamazed
    There certainly are examples of correlation without causation. Take smoking. There is a strong correlation but the cause of cancer is an oncogene that, over time, can be activated by, amongst other things, tobacco smoking. Smoking merely increases the chances that the causal element will be activated.

    The question really is not whether there is some correlation, however weak, but whether there is a sufficiently strong correlation that it is worthwhile investigating a causal link.

    Correlation also depends on the structure of the sample used to look for correlation. Here is an interesting example from the website http://www.christopherspenn.com/2014/11/causation-can-exist-without-correlation/

    "One of the assumptions that lots of folks (including myself) have at a certain point in statistics is that while correlation does not equal causation, causation cannot exist without correlation. However, it turns out that this isn’t true. Causation can exist without correlation!

    "How is this possible, when a relationship would seem to be mandatory in order for a causal relationship to be present? It’s deceptively simple, and boils down to how you select data. Let’s take a fictitious example; let’s say that I worked for an alcohol company, and I wanted to prove that alcohol does not cause motor vehicle fatalities. For clarity’s sake, neither are true – I don’t work for an alcohol company, and driving while intoxicated is blatantly unsafe. Don’t do it.

    "If I were to do a correlation of a random, representative sampling of people, some of whom drank alcohol and operated a vehicle unsafely, and some of whom did not, you would indeed see that there’s a strong relationship between alcohol consumption and vehicular fatalities. That would seem to indicate that correlation was mandatory in order for there to be causation.

    "But suppose I restricted my “study” to people who were, in my inexpert opinion, most likely to drive drunk. Suppose I focused it only on people who had 10 or more drinks per day? What you might find would be a negative correlation, that in fact, the more you drink, the less likely it is you’ll die from drunk driving, and therefore driving while drunk must be safe. What’s really happening among that population of super-heavy drinkers? They’re likely dying of causes other than drunk driving. At 10+ drinks a day, that’s not too hard to imagine.

    "The reality is that by selecting a population with no variation – that is, no one in the study did NOT drink – you can create distortions in your data that can “prove” your point, even though they’re statistically invalid. We know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that drinking alcohol does cause an increase in vehicular deaths, but the data can be manipulated to “prove” otherwise."

    There certainly are examples of correlation without causation. Take smoking. There is a strong correlation but the cause of cancer is an oncogene that, over time, can be activated by, amongst other things, tobacco smoking. Smoking merely increases the chances that the causal element will be activated.

    Merely?

    Read More
    • Replies: @simplyamazed
    "Merely" in the sense that it is not a causal element, just a factor, however potent, that activates a causal element.

    Tumour suppressor genes when inactivated are causal factors for certain kinds of cancer when their function is absent. As a result, their correlation is extremely difficult to demonstrate using statistical methods; some describe the statistical correlation as statistically insignificant. They were discovered using functional analysis.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. On smoking, there are some cultures that smoke alot and very low instances of cancer. I’ve seen some convincing argument that whether or not smoking increases risk of cancer may itself depend on genetics, meaning smoking may greatly increase risk for some and have no effect on the risk for others. It makes sense if you believe in human biodiversity that some genes would handle the effects of smoking better or worse than others.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    On smoking, there are some cultures that smoke alot and very low instances of cancer.
     
    Is that true for lung cancer? The lung cancer - smoking connection is compelling for multiple reasons:
    - low base rate compared to rate for smokers
    - obvious physical connection of carcinogenic (in animals) smoke in lungs for extended periods

    Heart disease and smoking makes an interesting contrast. The heart disease base rate is high enough that even though a high absolute number of CVD deaths are attributed to smoking the relative hazard is fairly low and I think there is a decent chance there is a relevant genetic component.

    Here are some numbers. Notice how much higher the hazard ratios are for lung cancer:
    http://jamanetwork.com/data/Journals/INTEMED/11941/ioi80690t3.png

    Full paper at http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/484996

    Worth mentioning that genetic predisposition to smoke will likely matter less in populations where many people smoke (1960s America) than in a population where relatively few smoke (2010s America) due to inconvenience, expense, stigma, etc.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. res says:
    @James Thompson
    You might like to consider Woodley's comments on this.
    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/woodley-elaborates
    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-woodley-challenge

    Thanks for the additional links.

    In your first link a number of people mentioned Pearl but possibly without enough detail to follow up. The reference is to Judea Pearl whose best known work in this area is https://www.amazon.com/Causality-Reasoning-Inference-Judea-Pearl/dp/052189560X
    Here is a 50 page overview of Causal inference in statistics he published in 2009 (also known as R-350): https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.ssu/1255440554

    Timothy Bates’ comment 9 there also mentioned Eysenck and Fisher in this context. Can anyone recommend particular works of theirs covering causality?

    Regarding the challenge in your second link:

    “Sure, correlation does not equal causation, but find me just one single instance of a causal relationship where there is no correlation (just one would suffice).”

    As befits a challenge, I will be offering the traditional bottle of wine to the best instance. Woodley judges, I arbitrate if required, and provide the bottle of wine.

    For a simple contrived example just use any purely quadratic relationship across a range covering negative and positive numbers equally. For example, y = x^2 over integers [-2, 2]. Looking at a relationship which is strongly quadratic with Z-score might prove fruitful as an example.

    For a somewhat less contrived example consider the relationship of acceleration and velocity. Looking at a series of positive and negative accelerations over time (netting to roughly 0 final velocity and covering both + and – v). I saw a correlation of -0.07. I don’t have the patience to reduce that to essentially 0, but I am pretty sure it is possible.

    There is another slightly more real world example (which relies on an unobserved intermediate variable) at the bottom of https://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/causation-without-correlation-is-possible/

    I don’t think any of those are bottle of wine worthy though. Did anyone give you a serious contender?

    I suspect an example exists in the genome of a trait/SNP combination which has near zero linear effect (correlation of # alleles with trait) but has some quadratic effect (is causal). Speculation primarily based on the likelihood of strange cases given the number of possibilities. But one in a million or more chances don’t really disprove Woodley’s point.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill
    Yes, Pearl is who you want on this stuff. The linked posts are not even a little bit persuasive to anyone who actually knows anything about causation. Multivariate methods are not a way to magically infer causation from correlation, for example.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. @RaceRealist88

    humans were exposed to cold regions and became smarter
     
    No they didn't.

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/unique-everybody-else/201211/cold-winters-and-the-evolution-intelligence

    I don’t said this, read again what i wrote.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. res says:
    @Lars Porsena
    On smoking, there are some cultures that smoke alot and very low instances of cancer. I've seen some convincing argument that whether or not smoking increases risk of cancer may itself depend on genetics, meaning smoking may greatly increase risk for some and have no effect on the risk for others. It makes sense if you believe in human biodiversity that some genes would handle the effects of smoking better or worse than others.

    On smoking, there are some cultures that smoke alot and very low instances of cancer.

    Is that true for lung cancer? The lung cancer – smoking connection is compelling for multiple reasons:
    - low base rate compared to rate for smokers
    - obvious physical connection of carcinogenic (in animals) smoke in lungs for extended periods

    Heart disease and smoking makes an interesting contrast. The heart disease base rate is high enough that even though a high absolute number of CVD deaths are attributed to smoking the relative hazard is fairly low and I think there is a decent chance there is a relevant genetic component.

    Here are some numbers. Notice how much higher the hazard ratios are for lung cancer:

    Full paper at http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/484996

    Worth mentioning that genetic predisposition to smoke will likely matter less in populations where many people smoke (1960s America) than in a population where relatively few smoke (2010s America) due to inconvenience, expense, stigma, etc.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    The problem with arguing that the answer lies in the soil, is that human evolution has likely been driven primarily by cultural factors, especially social constructs such as religion, which can yield powerful group selective advantage, as I just happen to have discussed elsewhere today.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  40. @RaceRealist88
    I am unsure of the Inca, but the Maya didn't use the wheel for transportation since it wasn't conducive to their city state layouts. They knew of the wheel and its use, however, since they made children's toys with wheels. It's also worth noting that the Maya used the concept of "0" without outside influence as well.

    It's worth noting that civilization popped up independently in a few places, with the Maya being one of them. Writing was also only invented without influence in five areas: Meso America (the Maya), the Chinese, the Sumerians, the Harrapan, and the Egyptians.

    So yea, peoples can understand a concept of something without using it in their society due to their environment/city layout. I wouldn't attribute this to genes. Because if you're going on just where things were invented, you're going to have a bad time.


    Added to that is, the tech and political systems all developed either in the dry subtropics (fertile crescent) or the Mediterranean.
     
    Which is why civilization only popped up in areas with the right climate that could sustain large populations with food production. Areas like this are where writing was invented independently without any outside influence.

    They also fall for the fallacy of single cause:

    The fallacy of the single cause, also known as complex cause, causal oversimplification, causal reductionism, and reduction fallacy,[1] is a fallacy of questionable cause that occurs when it is assumed that there is a single, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_single_cause

    Simply torturing data and cherry-picking variables to confirm their already made conclusions.

    In this article, the funny thing is that they use biomes as the variable and biome is closely related to race to the point that they’re basicallyinterchangeable. Then they calculate the correlation between biomes and racially biased and therefore biome biased IQ estimates.

    Mr Thompson, why don’t you address the many stronger correlates of IQ like education or disease?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Okechukwu

    Mr Thompson, why don’t you address the many stronger correlates of IQ like education or disease?
     
    He can't keep those pesky immigrants out if he does that. He needs to convince the world that they're intellectually incapacitated genetically. And that they have immutable characteristics that are antithetical to western norms. It's all a farce, actually.
    , @YetAnotherAnon
    "why don’t you address the many stronger correlates of IQ like education or disease?"

    You could have given some links.

    There are loads of things which correlate with IQ as currently measured, but I would have thought they're likely to be a result of high IQ rather than a cause. Car ownership, laptop ownership, golf courses per 100,000 people.

    Education's a tricky one. I doubt average British IQ has changed much in the last 200 years, but far more people are educated there now than 200 years ago - and far more to degree level than fifty years ago.

    Disease - are you saying that treatable diseases are lowering average IQ in some places? Doesn't seem improbable, are there any studies? Certainly in the UK iodine deficiency used to produce 'slow' people.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. Res,

    It seems to me the low base rate is a statistical problem in and of itself. Lung cancer is a very rare disease as I understand it that most people simply never get. Even the vast majority of smokers never get lung cancer from it (and some non-smokers also get it anyway). So if statistics show that people who smoke get higher instances of lung cancer, OK, but are those instances evenly distributed amongst the whole population or occurring in high risk subsets?

    I can’t claim to be an expert on health statistics but I have heard others make the case that it is true for lung cancer rates. Here is the first site with statistics I found googling and I don’t claim it shows anything. http://www.wcrf.org/int/cancer-facts-figures/data-specific-cancers/lung-cancer-statistics

    I have specifically heard Turkey and parts of the middle east used as the example of places where lung cancer rates are relatively overall low despite the culture being heavily chain smoking.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    OK, but are those instances evenly distributed amongst the whole population or occurring in high risk subsets?
     
    High(er) risk subsets are likely relevant here IMHO. But unless those subsets are identifiable a priori (BTW, that's a big part of why physicians care about family history) then we can only make decisions based on the broad trend.

    One thing you have to watch out for is people engaging in a variant of the single cause fallacy. That variant is that the existence of another possible cause (e.g. arsenic, genetics) somehow renders the cause under discussion (smoking) irrelevant or unimportant.
    , @anon
    There are 2 types of smokers: Puffers and deep breathers.

    Puffers seem to go on forever. Deep breathing tobacco smoke?
    Not so much future in that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. @James Thompson


    There certainly are examples of correlation without causation. Take smoking. There is a strong correlation but the cause of cancer is an oncogene that, over time, can be activated by, amongst other things, tobacco smoking. Smoking merely increases the chances that the causal element will be activated.

     

    Merely?

    “Merely” in the sense that it is not a causal element, just a factor, however potent, that activates a causal element.

    Tumour suppressor genes when inactivated are causal factors for certain kinds of cancer when their function is absent. As a result, their correlation is extremely difficult to demonstrate using statistical methods; some describe the statistical correlation as statistically insignificant. They were discovered using functional analysis.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    If you are going to make that kind of argument I think you should define your usage of "causal."

    My working definition of "causal" tends to be something like Prob(event) < Prob(event|cause) AND there is a reasonable explanation both for why the "cause" should impact the "event" and why there is not a better underlying explanatory variable (see IQ/education as causal variables conversation, note that as there it is possible to have correlated variables both be causal, then the questions concern size and dependence of effects).
    (notational note, P or Prob(A | B) means the probability of A given B: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_probability )
    I also expect that < to be of a meaningful magnitude. Some ways to quantify "meaningful magnitude" are absolute difference, hazard ratios (e.g. if statistically significant and/or of a certain size), or percent variance explained.

    "Causal" does not imply either necessary or sufficient.

    Expanding on this, I think it is useful to look at identifiability, frequency and penetrance of "causes." Those can affect where it is useful to intervene. Something identifiable and frequent (e.g. smoking) may be the best place to intervene even if penetrance is low. For example, if that penetrance is dictated by unidentifiable genetics present in less than a percent of the population.

    Epidemiology provides another useful concept for quantifying ideas like this: Number needed to treat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_needed_to_treat
    It is important to note that like most statistical quantities NNT refers to a specific population. This is one reason improved screening (as discussed in an earlier thread here) can be so important.

    P.S. Seeing things like "some describe the statistical correlation as statistically insignificant. They were discovered using functional analysis." might also be interpreted as something that is theoretically relevant but is not that important in practice (e.g. because very uncommon).
    , @simplyamazed
    A clarification is in order. When I mentioned functional analysis I was using this description in a more general sense and had forgotten that it has a technical definition in mathematics.

    I should have made it clear that what I meant was analysis of actual intercellular function. Cellular proliferation is controlled in normal cells by what has been colloquially referred to as "accellerators" and "brakes". Accellerators stimulate cellular proliferation whereas brakes stop or slow cellular proliferation. Tumour suppressor genes are associated with the "brakes". Such functions operate in signalling pathways. Since the genes associated with "brakes" often are widely distributed in the body in many organs and structures, associating their disregulation (lack of function) with a particular cancer generates such a weak correlation that it can safely be judged as lack of correlation. However, studying their role in signalling pathways established a causal relationship between disregulation and tumour growth.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Bill says:
    @res
    Thanks for the additional links.

    In your first link a number of people mentioned Pearl but possibly without enough detail to follow up. The reference is to Judea Pearl whose best known work in this area is https://www.amazon.com/Causality-Reasoning-Inference-Judea-Pearl/dp/052189560X
    Here is a 50 page overview of Causal inference in statistics he published in 2009 (also known as R-350): https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.ssu/1255440554

    Timothy Bates' comment 9 there also mentioned Eysenck and Fisher in this context. Can anyone recommend particular works of theirs covering causality?

    Regarding the challenge in your second link:

    “Sure, correlation does not equal causation, but find me just one single instance of a causal relationship where there is no correlation (just one would suffice).”

    As befits a challenge, I will be offering the traditional bottle of wine to the best instance. Woodley judges, I arbitrate if required, and provide the bottle of wine.
     
    For a simple contrived example just use any purely quadratic relationship across a range covering negative and positive numbers equally. For example, y = x^2 over integers [-2, 2]. Looking at a relationship which is strongly quadratic with Z-score might prove fruitful as an example.

    For a somewhat less contrived example consider the relationship of acceleration and velocity. Looking at a series of positive and negative accelerations over time (netting to roughly 0 final velocity and covering both + and - v). I saw a correlation of -0.07. I don't have the patience to reduce that to essentially 0, but I am pretty sure it is possible.

    There is another slightly more real world example (which relies on an unobserved intermediate variable) at the bottom of https://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/causation-without-correlation-is-possible/

    I don't think any of those are bottle of wine worthy though. Did anyone give you a serious contender?

    I suspect an example exists in the genome of a trait/SNP combination which has near zero linear effect (correlation of # alleles with trait) but has some quadratic effect (is causal). Speculation primarily based on the likelihood of strange cases given the number of possibilities. But one in a million or more chances don't really disprove Woodley's point.

    Yes, Pearl is who you want on this stuff. The linked posts are not even a little bit persuasive to anyone who actually knows anything about causation. Multivariate methods are not a way to magically infer causation from correlation, for example.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    Yes, Pearl is who you want on this stuff. The linked posts are not even a little bit persuasive to anyone who actually knows anything about causation.
     
    I'd be interested in hearing more of your thoughts on this. I find the soil fertility argument compelling as a partial cause. It is hard to maintain a large (critical mass, not immense) functional society without adequate and robust enough soil fertility. One thing that seems to be a common theme in long-term successful societies is conventions that maintain the surrounding environment adequately (soil, fish, game animals, forests, etc.).

    That said, I find the arguments for proximity to seafood more compelling.

    I get the sense that here, as with so many things, the key is to be challenged (e.g. cold, agriculture) but not so much as to destroy the society at an extreme.

    Multivariate methods are not a way to magically infer causation from correlation, for example.
     
    Agreed they are not magic, and in particular can be troublesome when possible explanatory variables are highly correlated. What do you suggest instead? Multivariate methods are especially dangerous when there is a conscious effort to exclude likely causal variables in favor of effective proxies (which may also be causal in their own right, SES being a classic example).

    I haven't engaged with Pearl's work as much as I should. I became interested in probabilistic graphical models as a useful way to infer causation, but I have been disappointed at how little that is done.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. res says:
    @Lars Porsena
    Res,

    It seems to me the low base rate is a statistical problem in and of itself. Lung cancer is a very rare disease as I understand it that most people simply never get. Even the vast majority of smokers never get lung cancer from it (and some non-smokers also get it anyway). So if statistics show that people who smoke get higher instances of lung cancer, OK, but are those instances evenly distributed amongst the whole population or occurring in high risk subsets?

    I can't claim to be an expert on health statistics but I have heard others make the case that it is true for lung cancer rates. Here is the first site with statistics I found googling and I don't claim it shows anything. http://www.wcrf.org/int/cancer-facts-figures/data-specific-cancers/lung-cancer-statistics

    I have specifically heard Turkey and parts of the middle east used as the example of places where lung cancer rates are relatively overall low despite the culture being heavily chain smoking.

    OK, but are those instances evenly distributed amongst the whole population or occurring in high risk subsets?

    High(er) risk subsets are likely relevant here IMHO. But unless those subsets are identifiable a priori (BTW, that’s a big part of why physicians care about family history) then we can only make decisions based on the broad trend.

    One thing you have to watch out for is people engaging in a variant of the single cause fallacy. That variant is that the existence of another possible cause (e.g. arsenic, genetics) somehow renders the cause under discussion (smoking) irrelevant or unimportant.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. @RaceRealist88
    It's also worth noting that saying cold winter increased intelligence is the post hoc, ergo proper hoc fallacy.

    "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc is a Latin phrase for "after this, therefore, because of this." The term refers to a logical fallacy that because two events occurred in succession, the former event caused the latter event.[1][2]

    In addressing a post hoc, ergo propter hoc argument, it is important to recognise that correlation does not equal causation.
    Magical thinking is a form of post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy, in which superstitions are formed based on seeing patterns in a series of coincidences. For example, "these are my lucky trousers. Sometimes good things happen to me when I wear them."
     
    Here is the form of the argument:

    "Form of the argument[edit]
    P1: X happened before Y.
    P2: (unstated) Y was caused by something (that happened before Y).
    C1: Therefore, X caused Y."
     
    It's a pretty huge fallacy. Sure it's a fancy way of saying 'correlation doesn't equal causation", but, as you can see, the line of reasoning is logically fallacious.

    Before you repeat this again try to understand what I wrote… And reply based on my statements and not by half of sentence you misunderstood.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    This quote from you is why I invoked the fallacy and linked the link on cold winter and intelligence from Psychology Today.

    humans were exposed to cold regions and became smarter
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. @Santoculto
    Before you repeat this again try to understand what I wrote... And reply based on my statements and not by half of sentence you misunderstood.

    This quote from you is why I invoked the fallacy and linked the link on cold winter and intelligence from Psychology Today.

    humans were exposed to cold regions and became smarter

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    No, re read my comment. What you don't understand ask me.
    , @Afrosapiens
    Mr Thompson,

    If human intelligence evolved in adaptation to colder, or now you say temperate temperate climates. Then why are we closer to the chimpanzee of the rainforests of equatorial Africa (lowest ranked biome in your chart) instead of the Japanese macaque from your highest ranked temperate biome?

    And moreover, what empirical evidence can you provide that IQ (not intelligence) gave a survival advantage to pre-modern population and that it was strong enough for natural selection to operate?

    Also, does your biome theory explain the Flynn effect?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. Okechukwu says:
    @Afrosapiens
    They also fall for the fallacy of single cause:

    The fallacy of the single cause, also known as complex cause, causal oversimplification, causal reductionism, and reduction fallacy,[1] is a fallacy of questionable cause that occurs when it is assumed that there is a single, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_single_cause


    Simply torturing data and cherry-picking variables to confirm their already made conclusions.

    In this article, the funny thing is that they use biomes as the variable and biome is closely related to race to the point that they're basicallyinterchangeable. Then they calculate the correlation between biomes and racially biased and therefore biome biased IQ estimates.

    Mr Thompson, why don't you address the many stronger correlates of IQ like education or disease?

    Mr Thompson, why don’t you address the many stronger correlates of IQ like education or disease?

    He can’t keep those pesky immigrants out if he does that. He needs to convince the world that they’re intellectually incapacitated genetically. And that they have immutable characteristics that are antithetical to western norms. It’s all a farce, actually.

    Read More
    • Agree: Afrosapiens
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    The head author of a few of the parasitic load/disease burden papers has a Scientific American article on the matter. The sources for parasitic load and disease burden having higher correlations than temperature and Kanazawas savanna hypothesis are in the citations that Eppig provides.

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-is-average-iq-higher-in-some-places/

    Of course, a physiological explanation makes the most sense here. Having parasites and disease is metabolically demanding. Coupled with malnutrition and that'd be a huge cause for lower intelligence (whatever that is).
    , @utu
    He needs to convince the world that they’re intellectually incapacitated genetically.

    Actually, he does not need to do much convincing. Most of the world including people in Africa for wrong or right reasons already believe that there is a significant cognitive deficit among Sub Saharan Africans. The prejudice is huge. People like Dr. Thompson or Davide Piffer or our res here would just like to get a scientific confirmation for this prejudice. The problem is that what they engage in is not that much of a science but unfortunately there is enough people who believe that it is valid scientific exploration and inquiry. If however iq phenotype will be correlated to within the twin studies heritability with the genotype and a significant racial differences will established then you and Afrosapiens are fucked. This will be the final nail in the coffin constructed by experiences and prejudices accumulated over centuries. Then you and Afrosapiens will be the first who will want to have their IQ tattooed on their foreheads to signal that you are above the expected value of your racial groups.

    But as far as immigration is concerned IQ is secondary. Obviously one does not want morons but at the same time one may not want geniuses either because they can really undermined the social fabric of culture and tradition. Still if the morons and geniuses have the same external phenotype as the majority they will not be disruptive and will be able to achieve perfect assimilation at first by practicing mimicry unless they have anti-social religious memes such as those in Islam or Judaism. However if people have strong external phenotypes like differs skin color or other external racial traits they should never be invited as immigrants.. They can get temporary work permits at best but in very low quantities. The external phenotypes make assimilation impossible and they make the so-called racial problem inevitable. Partly because mimicry is impossible. So sorry Okechukwu and Afrosapiens Europe is not really a place for you. Your presence there would be detrimental to harmonious existence of European customs and culture. I am sure you two could contribute a lot in Haiti and anywhere in Africa which is many times larger than Europe. Go South young men.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. res says:
    @simplyamazed
    "Merely" in the sense that it is not a causal element, just a factor, however potent, that activates a causal element.

    Tumour suppressor genes when inactivated are causal factors for certain kinds of cancer when their function is absent. As a result, their correlation is extremely difficult to demonstrate using statistical methods; some describe the statistical correlation as statistically insignificant. They were discovered using functional analysis.

    If you are going to make that kind of argument I think you should define your usage of “causal.”

    My working definition of “causal” tends to be something like Prob(event) < Prob(event|cause) AND there is a reasonable explanation both for why the "cause" should impact the "event" and why there is not a better underlying explanatory variable (see IQ/education as causal variables conversation, note that as there it is possible to have correlated variables both be causal, then the questions concern size and dependence of effects).
    (notational note, P or Prob(A | B) means the probability of A given B: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_probability )
    I also expect that < to be of a meaningful magnitude. Some ways to quantify "meaningful magnitude" are absolute difference, hazard ratios (e.g. if statistically significant and/or of a certain size), or percent variance explained.

    "Causal" does not imply either necessary or sufficient.

    Expanding on this, I think it is useful to look at identifiability, frequency and penetrance of "causes." Those can affect where it is useful to intervene. Something identifiable and frequent (e.g. smoking) may be the best place to intervene even if penetrance is low. For example, if that penetrance is dictated by unidentifiable genetics present in less than a percent of the population.

    Epidemiology provides another useful concept for quantifying ideas like this: Number needed to treat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_needed_to_treat
    It is important to note that like most statistical quantities NNT refers to a specific population. This is one reason improved screening (as discussed in an earlier thread here) can be so important.

    P.S. Seeing things like “some describe the statistical correlation as statistically insignificant. They were discovered using functional analysis.” might also be interpreted as something that is theoretically relevant but is not that important in practice (e.g. because very uncommon).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. szopen says:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    (Argentine) locals never even thought of the wheel. S America and Australasia didn’t even have iron.
     
    Wheels are not much use without roads and fairly level terrain. S. America developed more than its share of food crops. I can't imagine what European food was like before they had potatoes and tomatoes. Rice came from China along with many high-tech inventions such as iron, rockets, and gun powder.

    Added to that is, the tech and political systems all developed either in the dry subtropics (fertile crescent) or the Mediterranean.
     
    That is the semitic view of civilization with the Bible being the world's oldest book etc etc. Modern archaeology contradicts this. Comparably old developed societies were located in India and China and probably other places as well.

    DO you sugges.t that _iron came to Europe from China_?

    First wheeled vehicles seem to be from northern Europe, though

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. @RaceRealist88
    This quote from you is why I invoked the fallacy and linked the link on cold winter and intelligence from Psychology Today.

    humans were exposed to cold regions and became smarter
     

    No, re read my comment. What you don’t understand ask me.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. res says:
    @Bill
    Yes, Pearl is who you want on this stuff. The linked posts are not even a little bit persuasive to anyone who actually knows anything about causation. Multivariate methods are not a way to magically infer causation from correlation, for example.

    Yes, Pearl is who you want on this stuff. The linked posts are not even a little bit persuasive to anyone who actually knows anything about causation.

    I’d be interested in hearing more of your thoughts on this. I find the soil fertility argument compelling as a partial cause. It is hard to maintain a large (critical mass, not immense) functional society without adequate and robust enough soil fertility. One thing that seems to be a common theme in long-term successful societies is conventions that maintain the surrounding environment adequately (soil, fish, game animals, forests, etc.).

    That said, I find the arguments for proximity to seafood more compelling.

    I get the sense that here, as with so many things, the key is to be challenged (e.g. cold, agriculture) but not so much as to destroy the society at an extreme.

    Multivariate methods are not a way to magically infer causation from correlation, for example.

    Agreed they are not magic, and in particular can be troublesome when possible explanatory variables are highly correlated. What do you suggest instead? Multivariate methods are especially dangerous when there is a conscious effort to exclude likely causal variables in favor of effective proxies (which may also be causal in their own right, SES being a classic example).

    I haven’t engaged with Pearl’s work as much as I should. I became interested in probabilistic graphical models as a useful way to infer causation, but I have been disappointed at how little that is done.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill
    I don't have an opinion on the question of how and why different levels of intelligence evolved in different places. Not something I know about.

    Agreed they are not magic, and in particular can be troublesome when possible explanatory variables are highly correlated. What do you suggest instead?
     
    Depends on the context. Experimental methods. Natural experiment methods. Instrumental variable (in the sense economists mean this phrase) methods.

    Failing all of those, you just have to make assumptions in order to identify the patterns of causation. Pearl's stuff---I mean the applied stuff---is about guiding you through figuring out what exactly you have to assume in order to nail down the causation in any particular model.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. szopen says:

    Isn’t it funny when one guy links to a paper written by someone else, and then clueless commenter attacks the guy and his motives, as if he was the one who wrote the thing?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Afrosapiens

    Isn’t it funny when one guy links to a paper written by someone else,
     
    He did more than linking to a paper, he endorsed its conclusions.

    and then clueless commenter attacks the guy and his motives
     
    Who's clueless? Is it me, or the guy that says Singapore confirmation of the theory as if Singapore was a normal country, and that other places like Hawaii (or North Korea and China) are strong refutations of the same theory.

    On attacking the guy, I did not attack him, but when questions are asked and not answered, I can reasonably assume that the author is not willing to engage in logical argumentation. Ironically, the only objection he addressed was the one recalling that correlation does not equal causation, which he still finds disputable even though it is one of the most basic facts of logic. Also, you can compare this attitude with Chanda Chisala's well written posts and responses in the comments section. Nothing like the systematic dodging of pertinent remarks that we see here.

    This questionable attitude can't be explained by genuine interest in science, the reason might be time constraints, or boredom, but you can also make an inference from the site on which the article is posted. It could be a coincidence, but this site doesn't seem to be one that holds human equality and acceptance of diversity in high esteem.

    Once you've connected the dots (takes only a thousandth of a second), you can clearly see the motivations of the author. Amazing, isn't it?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. Some co-relative relation can/may become causal. For example. Correlation between blue eyes and higher cognitive skills. Have blue eyes, seems, don’t cause increasing of cognitive skills but if you select strongly both variables in given population and don’t select non-blue eyed people with higher cognitive skills this correlation can become causal (??). Maybe we have direct and indirect causation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  54. @Okechukwu

    Mr Thompson, why don’t you address the many stronger correlates of IQ like education or disease?
     
    He can't keep those pesky immigrants out if he does that. He needs to convince the world that they're intellectually incapacitated genetically. And that they have immutable characteristics that are antithetical to western norms. It's all a farce, actually.

    The head author of a few of the parasitic load/disease burden papers has a Scientific American article on the matter. The sources for parasitic load and disease burden having higher correlations than temperature and Kanazawas savanna hypothesis are in the citations that Eppig provides.

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-is-average-iq-higher-in-some-places/

    Of course, a physiological explanation makes the most sense here. Having parasites and disease is metabolically demanding. Coupled with malnutrition and that’d be a huge cause for lower intelligence (whatever that is).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Okechukwu
    Thanks. That's a very useful article.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. @Afrosapiens
    They also fall for the fallacy of single cause:

    The fallacy of the single cause, also known as complex cause, causal oversimplification, causal reductionism, and reduction fallacy,[1] is a fallacy of questionable cause that occurs when it is assumed that there is a single, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_single_cause


    Simply torturing data and cherry-picking variables to confirm their already made conclusions.

    In this article, the funny thing is that they use biomes as the variable and biome is closely related to race to the point that they're basicallyinterchangeable. Then they calculate the correlation between biomes and racially biased and therefore biome biased IQ estimates.

    Mr Thompson, why don't you address the many stronger correlates of IQ like education or disease?

    “why don’t you address the many stronger correlates of IQ like education or disease?”

    You could have given some links.

    There are loads of things which correlate with IQ as currently measured, but I would have thought they’re likely to be a result of high IQ rather than a cause. Car ownership, laptop ownership, golf courses per 100,000 people.

    Education’s a tricky one. I doubt average British IQ has changed much in the last 200 years, but far more people are educated there now than 200 years ago – and far more to degree level than fifty years ago.

    Disease – are you saying that treatable diseases are lowering average IQ in some places? Doesn’t seem improbable, are there any studies? Certainly in the UK iodine deficiency used to produce ‘slow’ people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Afrosapiens

    You could have given some links.
     
    Search Eppig et. al.

    There are loads of things which correlate with IQ as currently measured, but I would have thought they’re likely to be a result of high IQ rather than a cause. Car ownership, laptop ownership, golf courses per 100,000 people.
     
    Well, there is a problem with the hereditarian interpretation of correlations. For instance, when someone implies that SES partly causes differences in IQ, hereditarians say the effect is negligible. But when one say IQ causes differences in SES, the contribution suddenly becomes strong. Weird, nah?

    Correlations are just fine, but they're not evidence, they just indicate a direction for empirical testing, one thing HBDers never do.

    Education’s a tricky one. I doubt average British IQ has changed much in the last 200 years, but far more people are educated there now than 200 years ago – and far more to degree level than fifty years ago.
     
    Ever heard about the Flynn effect?

    Disease – are you saying that treatable diseases are lowering average IQ in some places? Doesn’t seem improbable, are there any studies? Certainly in the UK iodine deficiency used to produce ‘slow’ people.

     

    Yes there are studies, my pal RaceRealists has some links, it's too time-consuming for me.

    I said education and disease, but many other things affect IQ test scores, things like motivation, or yoga (yes, yoga). It's kinda foolish to makeup evolutionary scenarios when you're aware of that.
    , @RaceRealist88

    You could have given some links.

    Disease – are you saying that treatable diseases are lowering average IQ in some places? Doesn’t seem improbable, are there any studies? Certainly in the UK iodine deficiency used to produce ‘slow’ people.
     
    Yes. It's a physiological explanation. Disease/parasites cause the body to fight the infections first; energy gets diverted to fight the disease and other parts of the body, obviously, begin lacking in nutrients (think how the brain sucks 25 percent of our daily kcal intake).

    Here are cites for disaese/parasitic load:

    Support is provided for the finding that a national index of parasite burden and national IQ are strongly linked and temperature also features strongly in the models. However, we tentatively recommend a physiological – via impacts on host–parasite interactions – rather than evolutionary explanation for the effect of temperature. We present this study primarily to highlight the danger of ignoring autocorrelation in spatially extended data, and outline an appropriate approach should a spatially explicit analysis be considered necessary.

    http://cyber.sci-hub.bz/MTAuMTAxNi9qLmludGVsbC4yMDExLjA1LjAwMQ==/10.1016%40j.intell.2011.05.001.pdf

    Regions of Mexico that were the target of malaria interventions had higher IQs than those that were not targeted:

    http://cyber.sci-hub.bz/MTAuMTAxNi9qLmpoZWFsZWNvLjIwMTIuMDYuMDAz/10.1016%40j.jhealeco.2012.06.003.pdf

    And this holds in America too:

    As predicted, we found that the correlation between average state IQ and infectious disease stress was − 0.67 (p < 0.0001) across the 50 states. Furthermore, when controlling the effects of wealth and educational variation among states, infectious disease stress was the best predictor of average state IQ.

    http://cyber.sci-hub.bz/MTAuMTAxNi9qLmludGVsbC4yMDExLjAyLjAwOA==/10.1016%40j.intell.2011.02.008.pdf

    And finally:

    Using three measures of average national intelligence quotient (IQ), we found that the zero-order correlation between average IQ and parasite stress ranges from r = −0.76 to r = −0.82 (p < 0.0001). These correlations are robust worldwide, as well as within five of six world regions. Infectious disease remains the most powerful predictor of average national IQ when temperature, distance from Africa, gross domestic product per capita and several measures of education are controlled for. These findings suggest that the Flynn effect may be caused in part by the decrease in the intensity of infectious diseases as nations develop.

    http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/277/1701/3801

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-is-average-iq-higher-in-some-places/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. Okechukwu says:
    @Santoculto
    Extreme climates more than increase it limitates .... creativity, what we are really talking about, [increasing of intelligence at point to also increase higher creativity]. So, too dry, too cold or too hot, and it's likely that instead a challenge to increase intelligence [and creativity], to win the environment, this harsh conditions will force living beings to maximize their adaptations = reduction of phenotypical variability as well superlativities; increase of pragmatic adaptative approach.

    Maybe it's not:

    humans were exposed to cold regions and became smarter but firstly, how they got there* During this expansion to polar regions, humans becoming smarter/aka self-controlled while when this expansion was limited for harsh climate they stoped to increase their intelligence.

    Even seems interesting to compare how fitted climates/biomas tend to be with personality types. ''equatorial personality''...


    bad grammar,
    still breathe...

    humans were exposed to cold regions and became smarter

    That’s a cute theory but it’s at variance with the actual evidence. You know, evidence.

    During this expansion to polar regions, humans becoming smarter/aka self-controlled while when this expansion was limited for harsh climate they stoped to increase their intelligence.

    Humans only migrated when conditions became salubrious. The northern hemisphere then like now can get unbearably hot in summer. Then like now it was temperate, lush and green with nearly every square inch cultivable, grazable or forested. Winter snowfall actually stores moisture crops need for the growing season.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Do you have sources about your statements?? How Eurasian environments were becoming salubrious without human activity??

    I don't said "humans become smarter when they arrived to non-African environments" but that when they arrived in this places they already become smarter, read, specifically speaking, (more) self controlled and because the extreme nature of this subpolar regions the increase of this traits ceased.

    Firstly they were becoming more "future-oriented": provide food during summer and preparing to winter, just like adapting to this tempered environment. Secondly, some of them will becoming more creative or the proportion of creative thinkers/strategists increase resulting in agriculture and civilization.

    I don't believe no there future oriented people among Africans but that this people has been a minority among them/you while this type of people has been more selected firstly by natural environment and secondly by artificial environment.

    And again I'm saying humans were becoming "smarter"/future oriented during their migrations and not only in the coldest places. We are talking about creativity. In very harsh places creativity or creative people tend to be persona non grata and pragmatic thinking style become the golden rule.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. @RaceRealist88
    This quote from you is why I invoked the fallacy and linked the link on cold winter and intelligence from Psychology Today.

    humans were exposed to cold regions and became smarter
     

    Mr Thompson,

    If human intelligence evolved in adaptation to colder, or now you say temperate temperate climates. Then why are we closer to the chimpanzee of the rainforests of equatorial Africa (lowest ranked biome in your chart) instead of the Japanese macaque from your highest ranked temperate biome?

    And moreover, what empirical evidence can you provide that IQ (not intelligence) gave a survival advantage to pre-modern population and that it was strong enough for natural selection to operate?

    Also, does your biome theory explain the Flynn effect?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. utu says:
    @Okechukwu

    Mr Thompson, why don’t you address the many stronger correlates of IQ like education or disease?
     
    He can't keep those pesky immigrants out if he does that. He needs to convince the world that they're intellectually incapacitated genetically. And that they have immutable characteristics that are antithetical to western norms. It's all a farce, actually.

    He needs to convince the world that they’re intellectually incapacitated genetically.

    Actually, he does not need to do much convincing. Most of the world including people in Africa for wrong or right reasons already believe that there is a significant cognitive deficit among Sub Saharan Africans. The prejudice is huge. People like Dr. Thompson or Davide Piffer or our res here would just like to get a scientific confirmation for this prejudice. The problem is that what they engage in is not that much of a science but unfortunately there is enough people who believe that it is valid scientific exploration and inquiry. If however iq phenotype will be correlated to within the twin studies heritability with the genotype and a significant racial differences will established then you and Afrosapiens are fucked. This will be the final nail in the coffin constructed by experiences and prejudices accumulated over centuries. Then you and Afrosapiens will be the first who will want to have their IQ tattooed on their foreheads to signal that you are above the expected value of your racial groups.

    But as far as immigration is concerned IQ is secondary. Obviously one does not want morons but at the same time one may not want geniuses either because they can really undermined the social fabric of culture and tradition. Still if the morons and geniuses have the same external phenotype as the majority they will not be disruptive and will be able to achieve perfect assimilation at first by practicing mimicry unless they have anti-social religious memes such as those in Islam or Judaism. However if people have strong external phenotypes like differs skin color or other external racial traits they should never be invited as immigrants.. They can get temporary work permits at best but in very low quantities. The external phenotypes make assimilation impossible and they make the so-called racial problem inevitable. Partly because mimicry is impossible. So sorry Okechukwu and Afrosapiens Europe is not really a place for you. Your presence there would be detrimental to harmonious existence of European customs and culture. I am sure you two could contribute a lot in Haiti and anywhere in Africa which is many times larger than Europe. Go South young men.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Afrosapiens

    Most of the world including people in Africa for wrong or right reasons already believe that there is a significant cognitive deficit among Sub Saharan Africans.
     
    Most of the world, especially in Africa would laugh at the idea of measuring intelligence. Most of the world, especially in Africa have other conceptions of human worth.

    Then you and Afrosapiens will be the first who will want to have their IQ tattooed on their foreheads to signal that you are above the expected value of your racial groups.
     
    LOL! I'd kill myself before doing something that stupid. I know it's a metaphor that you're using, but anyway, I've never felt that I had something to prove because I'm black, my accomplishments speak for themselves and they were effortless.

    So sorry Okechukwu and Afrosapiens Europe is not really a place for you. Your presence there would be detrimental to harmonious existence of European customs and culture. I am sure you two could contribute a lot in Haiti and anywhere in Africa which is many times larger than Europe. Go South young men.
     
    LMAO! I don't give a damn about "harmonious existence blah blah blah". All I care about is my girlfriend, my family and friends who need me here as much as I need them.

    Europeans really don't need us to destroy each other. Without us, they'd be declining like Japan.
    , @Okechukwu

    Actually, he does not need to do much convincing. Most of the world including people in Africa for wrong or right reasons already believe that there is a significant cognitive deficit among Sub Saharan Africans.
     
    Actually, no. Sub-Saharan Africans ultimately rejected colonialism because upon interaction with Europeans they didn't find them to be cognitively superior. Often they found the opposite to be the case.

    As far as the rest of the world, I haven't found that they ascribe the myriad problems in Africa to intellectual deficiencies. That's hardly in the top 100 list of potential causes. The largest corporations in the world are making a beeline to Africa to leverage the intellectual capital there.

    People like Dr. Thompson or Davide Piffer or our res here would just like to get a scientific confirmation for this prejudice.
     
    Bingo! Jackpot! You are absolutely correct. But they will fail as their predecessors have failed for hundreds if not thousands of years.

    If however iq phenotype will be correlated to within the twin studies heritability with the genotype and a significant racial differences will established then you and Afrosapiens are fucked.
     
    Yeah, fucked among a tiny fringe of keyboard racists sitting in their trailer parks. Hardly fucked in the real world which enshrines individuality. Furthermore, no one disputes that intelligence has a heritable component. Establishing that fact in twin studies wouldn't uphold supremacist ideologies.

    Then you and Afrosapiens will be the first who will want to have their IQ tattooed on their foreheads to signal that you are above the expected value of your racial groups.
     
    Haha. You should write for Hollywood. That's a fictitious dystopian future that is just begging for a talented scriptwriter to treat. Big hint: It'll never happen in the real world.

    Okechukwu and Afrosapiens Europe is not really a place for you
     
    I don't live in Europe, as you know. I would never live in Europe because I can't stand soccer. Afro seems to be doing just fine there, however, as are millions of other blacks. My own relatives live in England and get on just fine there. Some of them speak such a thickly accented British English that I can barely understand what they're saying. Often when I drift off into peculiarly Southern California speech patterns, they say the same about me. Surely those are examples of mimicry, no?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    The demographics of Singapore make it a prime candidate for exclusion, not because it is a positive outlier that is nearly twice as extreme as the next positive outlier, but because in the 1800s there was a large influx of Chinese who now make up approximately seventy percent of the total population. So while Singapore lies on the equator, it is not populated by persons that evolved in that territory.

    But the Chinese who moved to Singapore evolved mainly in the subtropical climate of southern China. And yet today, Singaporeans have higher IQs than the northern Chinese, not to mention the Koreans and Japanese, who supposedly evolved in climates more favorable to the development of IQ.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  60. @YetAnotherAnon
    "why don’t you address the many stronger correlates of IQ like education or disease?"

    You could have given some links.

    There are loads of things which correlate with IQ as currently measured, but I would have thought they're likely to be a result of high IQ rather than a cause. Car ownership, laptop ownership, golf courses per 100,000 people.

    Education's a tricky one. I doubt average British IQ has changed much in the last 200 years, but far more people are educated there now than 200 years ago - and far more to degree level than fifty years ago.

    Disease - are you saying that treatable diseases are lowering average IQ in some places? Doesn't seem improbable, are there any studies? Certainly in the UK iodine deficiency used to produce 'slow' people.

    You could have given some links.

    Search Eppig et. al.

    There are loads of things which correlate with IQ as currently measured, but I would have thought they’re likely to be a result of high IQ rather than a cause. Car ownership, laptop ownership, golf courses per 100,000 people.

    Well, there is a problem with the hereditarian interpretation of correlations. For instance, when someone implies that SES partly causes differences in IQ, hereditarians say the effect is negligible. But when one say IQ causes differences in SES, the contribution suddenly becomes strong. Weird, nah?

    Correlations are just fine, but they’re not evidence, they just indicate a direction for empirical testing, one thing HBDers never do.

    Education’s a tricky one. I doubt average British IQ has changed much in the last 200 years, but far more people are educated there now than 200 years ago – and far more to degree level than fifty years ago.

    Ever heard about the Flynn effect?

    Disease – are you saying that treatable diseases are lowering average IQ in some places? Doesn’t seem improbable, are there any studies? Certainly in the UK iodine deficiency used to produce ‘slow’ people.

    Yes there are studies, my pal RaceRealists has some links, it’s too time-consuming for me.

    I said education and disease, but many other things affect IQ test scores, things like motivation, or yoga (yes, yoga). It’s kinda foolish to makeup evolutionary scenarios when you’re aware of that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. Okechukwu says:
    @RaceRealist88
    The head author of a few of the parasitic load/disease burden papers has a Scientific American article on the matter. The sources for parasitic load and disease burden having higher correlations than temperature and Kanazawas savanna hypothesis are in the citations that Eppig provides.

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-is-average-iq-higher-in-some-places/

    Of course, a physiological explanation makes the most sense here. Having parasites and disease is metabolically demanding. Coupled with malnutrition and that'd be a huge cause for lower intelligence (whatever that is).

    Thanks. That’s a very useful article.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. @szopen
    Isn't it funny when one guy links to a paper written by someone else, and then clueless commenter attacks the guy and his motives, as if he was the one who wrote the thing?

    Isn’t it funny when one guy links to a paper written by someone else,

    He did more than linking to a paper, he endorsed its conclusions.

    and then clueless commenter attacks the guy and his motives

    Who’s clueless? Is it me, or the guy that says Singapore confirmation of the theory as if Singapore was a normal country, and that other places like Hawaii (or North Korea and China) are strong refutations of the same theory.

    On attacking the guy, I did not attack him, but when questions are asked and not answered, I can reasonably assume that the author is not willing to engage in logical argumentation. Ironically, the only objection he addressed was the one recalling that correlation does not equal causation, which he still finds disputable even though it is one of the most basic facts of logic. Also, you can compare this attitude with Chanda Chisala’s well written posts and responses in the comments section. Nothing like the systematic dodging of pertinent remarks that we see here.

    This questionable attitude can’t be explained by genuine interest in science, the reason might be time constraints, or boredom, but you can also make an inference from the site on which the article is posted. It could be a coincidence, but this site doesn’t seem to be one that holds human equality and acceptance of diversity in high esteem.

    Once you’ve connected the dots (takes only a thousandth of a second), you can clearly see the motivations of the author. Amazing, isn’t it?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill

    Also, you can compare this attitude with Chanda Chisala’s well written posts and responses in the comments section. Nothing like the systematic dodging of pertinent remarks that we see here.
     
    That's delusional.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. @Okechukwu

    humans were exposed to cold regions and became smarter
     
    That's a cute theory but it's at variance with the actual evidence. You know, evidence.

    During this expansion to polar regions, humans becoming smarter/aka self-controlled while when this expansion was limited for harsh climate they stoped to increase their intelligence.
     
    Humans only migrated when conditions became salubrious. The northern hemisphere then like now can get unbearably hot in summer. Then like now it was temperate, lush and green with nearly every square inch cultivable, grazable or forested. Winter snowfall actually stores moisture crops need for the growing season.

    Do you have sources about your statements?? How Eurasian environments were becoming salubrious without human activity??

    I don’t said “humans become smarter when they arrived to non-African environments” but that when they arrived in this places they already become smarter, read, specifically speaking, (more) self controlled and because the extreme nature of this subpolar regions the increase of this traits ceased.

    Firstly they were becoming more “future-oriented”: provide food during summer and preparing to winter, just like adapting to this tempered environment. Secondly, some of them will becoming more creative or the proportion of creative thinkers/strategists increase resulting in agriculture and civilization.

    I don’t believe no there future oriented people among Africans but that this people has been a minority among them/you while this type of people has been more selected firstly by natural environment and secondly by artificial environment.

    And again I’m saying humans were becoming “smarter”/future oriented during their migrations and not only in the coldest places. We are talking about creativity. In very harsh places creativity or creative people tend to be persona non grata and pragmatic thinking style become the golden rule.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. “When they arrived in COLDER non-African environments”. Correcting..

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  65. @YetAnotherAnon
    "why don’t you address the many stronger correlates of IQ like education or disease?"

    You could have given some links.

    There are loads of things which correlate with IQ as currently measured, but I would have thought they're likely to be a result of high IQ rather than a cause. Car ownership, laptop ownership, golf courses per 100,000 people.

    Education's a tricky one. I doubt average British IQ has changed much in the last 200 years, but far more people are educated there now than 200 years ago - and far more to degree level than fifty years ago.

    Disease - are you saying that treatable diseases are lowering average IQ in some places? Doesn't seem improbable, are there any studies? Certainly in the UK iodine deficiency used to produce 'slow' people.

    You could have given some links.

    Disease – are you saying that treatable diseases are lowering average IQ in some places? Doesn’t seem improbable, are there any studies? Certainly in the UK iodine deficiency used to produce ‘slow’ people.

    Yes. It’s a physiological explanation. Disease/parasites cause the body to fight the infections first; energy gets diverted to fight the disease and other parts of the body, obviously, begin lacking in nutrients (think how the brain sucks 25 percent of our daily kcal intake).

    Here are cites for disaese/parasitic load:

    Support is provided for the finding that a national index of parasite burden and national IQ are strongly linked and temperature also features strongly in the models. However, we tentatively recommend a physiological – via impacts on host–parasite interactions – rather than evolutionary explanation for the effect of temperature. We present this study primarily to highlight the danger of ignoring autocorrelation in spatially extended data, and outline an appropriate approach should a spatially explicit analysis be considered necessary.

    http://cyber.sci-hub.bz/MTAuMTAxNi9qLmludGVsbC4yMDExLjA1LjAwMQ==/10.1016%40j.intell.2011.05.001.pdf

    Regions of Mexico that were the target of malaria interventions had higher IQs than those that were not targeted:

    http://cyber.sci-hub.bz/MTAuMTAxNi9qLmpoZWFsZWNvLjIwMTIuMDYuMDAz/10.1016%40j.jhealeco.2012.06.003.pdf

    And this holds in America too:

    As predicted, we found that the correlation between average state IQ and infectious disease stress was − 0.67 (p < 0.0001) across the 50 states. Furthermore, when controlling the effects of wealth and educational variation among states, infectious disease stress was the best predictor of average state IQ.

    http://cyber.sci-hub.bz/MTAuMTAxNi9qLmludGVsbC4yMDExLjAyLjAwOA==/10.1016%40j.intell.2011.02.008.pdf

    And finally:

    Using three measures of average national intelligence quotient (IQ), we found that the zero-order correlation between average IQ and parasite stress ranges from r = −0.76 to r = −0.82 (p < 0.0001). These correlations are robust worldwide, as well as within five of six world regions. Infectious disease remains the most powerful predictor of average national IQ when temperature, distance from Africa, gross domestic product per capita and several measures of education are controlled for. These findings suggest that the Flynn effect may be caused in part by the decrease in the intensity of infectious diseases as nations develop.

    http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/277/1701/3801

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-is-average-iq-higher-in-some-places/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. @utu
    He needs to convince the world that they’re intellectually incapacitated genetically.

    Actually, he does not need to do much convincing. Most of the world including people in Africa for wrong or right reasons already believe that there is a significant cognitive deficit among Sub Saharan Africans. The prejudice is huge. People like Dr. Thompson or Davide Piffer or our res here would just like to get a scientific confirmation for this prejudice. The problem is that what they engage in is not that much of a science but unfortunately there is enough people who believe that it is valid scientific exploration and inquiry. If however iq phenotype will be correlated to within the twin studies heritability with the genotype and a significant racial differences will established then you and Afrosapiens are fucked. This will be the final nail in the coffin constructed by experiences and prejudices accumulated over centuries. Then you and Afrosapiens will be the first who will want to have their IQ tattooed on their foreheads to signal that you are above the expected value of your racial groups.

    But as far as immigration is concerned IQ is secondary. Obviously one does not want morons but at the same time one may not want geniuses either because they can really undermined the social fabric of culture and tradition. Still if the morons and geniuses have the same external phenotype as the majority they will not be disruptive and will be able to achieve perfect assimilation at first by practicing mimicry unless they have anti-social religious memes such as those in Islam or Judaism. However if people have strong external phenotypes like differs skin color or other external racial traits they should never be invited as immigrants.. They can get temporary work permits at best but in very low quantities. The external phenotypes make assimilation impossible and they make the so-called racial problem inevitable. Partly because mimicry is impossible. So sorry Okechukwu and Afrosapiens Europe is not really a place for you. Your presence there would be detrimental to harmonious existence of European customs and culture. I am sure you two could contribute a lot in Haiti and anywhere in Africa which is many times larger than Europe. Go South young men.

    Most of the world including people in Africa for wrong or right reasons already believe that there is a significant cognitive deficit among Sub Saharan Africans.

    Most of the world, especially in Africa would laugh at the idea of measuring intelligence. Most of the world, especially in Africa have other conceptions of human worth.

    Then you and Afrosapiens will be the first who will want to have their IQ tattooed on their foreheads to signal that you are above the expected value of your racial groups.

    LOL! I’d kill myself before doing something that stupid. I know it’s a metaphor that you’re using, but anyway, I’ve never felt that I had something to prove because I’m black, my accomplishments speak for themselves and they were effortless.

    So sorry Okechukwu and Afrosapiens Europe is not really a place for you. Your presence there would be detrimental to harmonious existence of European customs and culture. I am sure you two could contribute a lot in Haiti and anywhere in Africa which is many times larger than Europe. Go South young men.

    LMAO! I don’t give a damn about “harmonious existence blah blah blah”. All I care about is my girlfriend, my family and friends who need me here as much as I need them.

    Europeans really don’t need us to destroy each other. Without us, they’d be declining like Japan.

    Read More
    • Agree: Okechukwu
    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    "declining like Japan"

    Very witty. I wish the UK could decline like Japan.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/08/opinion/sunday/the-true-story-of-japans-economic-success.html

    https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/02/the-myth-of-japans-lost-decades/71741/


    "At the heart of my analysis is a story of extraordinary progress by Japanese manufacturing. The reason you don't hear much about Japanese manufacturers these days is that the best of them have moved from making consumer goods to concentrate on so-called producers' goods -- items that though invisible to the consumer happen to be critical to the world economy. Such goods include the highly miniaturized components, advanced materials, and super-precise machines that less sophisticated nations such as China need to make final consumer goods. The label on everything from cell phones to laptop computers may say "Made in China" but actually, via producers' goods, highly capital-intensive and knowhow-intensive manufacturers in Japan have quietly done much of the most technologically demanding work.

    In the early years after World War II the United States utterly dominated the higher reaches of the producers' goods business. Under pressure from foreign competition, however, American players one by one have closed down or outsourced in the last quarter of a century. The competition has come principally from Japan, which now enjoys broadly as dominant and geopolitically important a position as the United States did in the 1960s. Even if you don't hear much about this from the Tokyo talking heads, it is hard to miss it in global trade figures. (Fact: America's current account deficit multiplied five-fold in the 20 years to 2010 and the reason in large measure is because American corporations have exited the producers' goods business.)"
     

    , @Daniel Chieh
    Very sad to see China's constant decline, too. Need more Africans esp. unselected for skills and uninterested in sacrificing what Chinese call "blood and capital" for the future.
    , @Anon
    >Most of the world, especially in Africa would laugh at the idea of measuring intelligence. Most of the world, especially in Africa have other conceptions of human worth.

    Even the Chinese authorities acknowledge intelligence gaps.

    >LMAO! I don’t give a damn about “harmonious existence blah blah blah”. All I care about is my girlfriend, my family and friends who need me here as much as I need them.

    Here we see the Negro admitting to having no respect for his host country and planning to get all the gibsmedats around.

    >Europeans really don’t need us to destroy each other. Without us, they’d be declining like Japan.

    Ah yes, Japan with how it has some of the lowest crime levels on Earth, some of the highest GDP per capita, a leadership and enterainment community nowhere near as hostile to their populace as the Euros or as disasterous as the Black ones (How's Zimbabwe doing?). What, not they're not having more kids on their well-populated island? It's called automation and keeping out migrants or aren't of your stock.

    And tell us about the many contributions of Togongo and Jamal. Is it in welfare using, terrorism, AIDs, and prowling for White women to rape, I mean, enrich?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. Jim says:
    @RaceRealist88
    I am unsure of the Inca, but the Maya didn't use the wheel for transportation since it wasn't conducive to their city state layouts. They knew of the wheel and its use, however, since they made children's toys with wheels. It's also worth noting that the Maya used the concept of "0" without outside influence as well.

    It's worth noting that civilization popped up independently in a few places, with the Maya being one of them. Writing was also only invented without influence in five areas: Meso America (the Maya), the Chinese, the Sumerians, the Harrapan, and the Egyptians.

    So yea, peoples can understand a concept of something without using it in their society due to their environment/city layout. I wouldn't attribute this to genes. Because if you're going on just where things were invented, you're going to have a bad time.


    Added to that is, the tech and political systems all developed either in the dry subtropics (fertile crescent) or the Mediterranean.
     
    Which is why civilization only popped up in areas with the right climate that could sustain large populations with food production. Areas like this are where writing was invented independently without any outside influence.

    The first writing in Mesoamerica is Olmec writing not Mayan. Olmec culture seems somewhat similar to Mayan but because the Olmec writing has never been deciphered who are not sure what their exact relation to the Maya was. Most other Mesoamerican cultures other than the Maya and Olmec also had writing.

    There is some evidence that Egyptian writing was derived from Mesopotamian writing and also that writing in China may have come from the west.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88

    The first writing in Mesoamerica is Olmec writing not Mayan.
     
    I'm pretty certain the oldest date we have on Maya writing is between 200-300 BC.

    http://cyber.sci-hub.bz/MTAuMTEyNi9zY2llbmNlLjExMjE3NDU=/10.1126%40science.1121745.pdf

    For the Olmec, I believe the date is 500 BC. Do you have a paper to verify that claim?

    I know that the Maya and Olmecs traded people as well as culture too.

    Olmec culture seems somewhat similar to Mayan but because the Olmec writing has never been deciphered who are not sure what their exact relation to the Maya was.
     
    They intermingled, cultural exchange is noted:

    The site shows incipient plaza and pyramid construction beginning before those seen in the lowlands or Olmec areas, suggesting a broader cultural exchange through to the Pacific Coast as Mayan cultures evolved.

    http://cyber.sci-hub.bz/MTAuMTEyNi9zY2llbmNlLjEyMzQ0OTM=/10.1126%40science.1234493.pdf

    Most other Mesoamerican cultures other than the Maya and Olmec also had writing.
     
    Right, but I specified writing that was created independently.

    There is some evidence that Egyptian writing was derived from Mesopotamian writing
     
    Makes sense. Citation?

    writing in China may have come from the west
     
    Citation?

    http://chemsites.chem.rutgers.edu/~kyc/Five%20Original%20Writing%20Systems.html
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. Okechukwu says:
    @utu
    He needs to convince the world that they’re intellectually incapacitated genetically.

    Actually, he does not need to do much convincing. Most of the world including people in Africa for wrong or right reasons already believe that there is a significant cognitive deficit among Sub Saharan Africans. The prejudice is huge. People like Dr. Thompson or Davide Piffer or our res here would just like to get a scientific confirmation for this prejudice. The problem is that what they engage in is not that much of a science but unfortunately there is enough people who believe that it is valid scientific exploration and inquiry. If however iq phenotype will be correlated to within the twin studies heritability with the genotype and a significant racial differences will established then you and Afrosapiens are fucked. This will be the final nail in the coffin constructed by experiences and prejudices accumulated over centuries. Then you and Afrosapiens will be the first who will want to have their IQ tattooed on their foreheads to signal that you are above the expected value of your racial groups.

    But as far as immigration is concerned IQ is secondary. Obviously one does not want morons but at the same time one may not want geniuses either because they can really undermined the social fabric of culture and tradition. Still if the morons and geniuses have the same external phenotype as the majority they will not be disruptive and will be able to achieve perfect assimilation at first by practicing mimicry unless they have anti-social religious memes such as those in Islam or Judaism. However if people have strong external phenotypes like differs skin color or other external racial traits they should never be invited as immigrants.. They can get temporary work permits at best but in very low quantities. The external phenotypes make assimilation impossible and they make the so-called racial problem inevitable. Partly because mimicry is impossible. So sorry Okechukwu and Afrosapiens Europe is not really a place for you. Your presence there would be detrimental to harmonious existence of European customs and culture. I am sure you two could contribute a lot in Haiti and anywhere in Africa which is many times larger than Europe. Go South young men.

    Actually, he does not need to do much convincing. Most of the world including people in Africa for wrong or right reasons already believe that there is a significant cognitive deficit among Sub Saharan Africans.

    Actually, no. Sub-Saharan Africans ultimately rejected colonialism because upon interaction with Europeans they didn’t find them to be cognitively superior. Often they found the opposite to be the case.

    As far as the rest of the world, I haven’t found that they ascribe the myriad problems in Africa to intellectual deficiencies. That’s hardly in the top 100 list of potential causes. The largest corporations in the world are making a beeline to Africa to leverage the intellectual capital there.

    People like Dr. Thompson or Davide Piffer or our res here would just like to get a scientific confirmation for this prejudice.

    Bingo! Jackpot! You are absolutely correct. But they will fail as their predecessors have failed for hundreds if not thousands of years.

    If however iq phenotype will be correlated to within the twin studies heritability with the genotype and a significant racial differences will established then you and Afrosapiens are fucked.

    Yeah, fucked among a tiny fringe of keyboard racists sitting in their trailer parks. Hardly fucked in the real world which enshrines individuality. Furthermore, no one disputes that intelligence has a heritable component. Establishing that fact in twin studies wouldn’t uphold supremacist ideologies.

    Then you and Afrosapiens will be the first who will want to have their IQ tattooed on their foreheads to signal that you are above the expected value of your racial groups.

    Haha. You should write for Hollywood. That’s a fictitious dystopian future that is just begging for a talented scriptwriter to treat. Big hint: It’ll never happen in the real world.

    Okechukwu and Afrosapiens Europe is not really a place for you

    I don’t live in Europe, as you know. I would never live in Europe because I can’t stand soccer. Afro seems to be doing just fine there, however, as are millions of other blacks. My own relatives live in England and get on just fine there. Some of them speak such a thickly accented British English that I can barely understand what they’re saying. Often when I drift off into peculiarly Southern California speech patterns, they say the same about me. Surely those are examples of mimicry, no?

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    Actually, no. Sub-Saharan Africans ultimately rejected colonialism because upon interaction with Europeans they didn’t find them to be cognitively superior.
     
    Don't be absurd. Sub-Saharan Africans never accepted colonialism, they merely had to take it, because, as Hillaire Belloc wrote:

    Whatever happens,
    we have got.
    The Maxim gun,
    and they have not.

    Once, the Soviets supplied you lot with guns of your own, you kicked the colonial powers in the arse as any self-respecting people would. Well done. But don't make nonsense of history by attributing what happened to racial differences in IQ.

    , @K-Drama Kumiho

    Actually, no. Sub-Saharan Africans ultimately rejected colonialism because upon interaction with Europeans they didn’t find them to be cognitively superior. Often they found the opposite to be the case.
     
    LOL. If by "rejected," you of mean that European resolve to maintain colonialism declined due to Western moral debate. Portugal was a the major exception. Even then you needed Communist patronage to win.

    I'm Korean. I don't have any delusion that Korea "rejected" Japanese colonialism. We received it due to the Allies defeating the Japanese Empire. South Korean independence from China has also depended on a U.S. presence.

    You state that the people with global transportation, civil engineering, medicine, and other technology were not "cognitively superior." OK, in theory that could be true. But if that were true, then at least some African societies would have shown a rapid upwardly-mobile trajectory like the PRC, Taiwan, South Korea, or Japan, all of whom have IQs comparable, of not superior to Europeans. Asian states have flourished despite devastating wars and brutal internal violence directed at intellectuals like the Cultural Revolution.

    What was Subsahran Africans' highest technological achievement prior to European colonialism? Since independence? What's the most significant scientific paper published by a Subsahran African with no clear European admixture ever? Chisala has dodged that question when asked because it belies his thesis.
    , @Peter Johnson
    James Watson, co-discoverer of the DNA molecule, said "I am inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really." That sounds like a wise opinion to me.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. @Jim
    The first writing in Mesoamerica is Olmec writing not Mayan. Olmec culture seems somewhat similar to Mayan but because the Olmec writing has never been deciphered who are not sure what their exact relation to the Maya was. Most other Mesoamerican cultures other than the Maya and Olmec also had writing.

    There is some evidence that Egyptian writing was derived from Mesopotamian writing and also that writing in China may have come from the west.

    The first writing in Mesoamerica is Olmec writing not Mayan.

    I’m pretty certain the oldest date we have on Maya writing is between 200-300 BC.

    http://cyber.sci-hub.bz/MTAuMTEyNi9zY2llbmNlLjExMjE3NDU=/10.1126%40science.1121745.pdf

    For the Olmec, I believe the date is 500 BC. Do you have a paper to verify that claim?

    I know that the Maya and Olmecs traded people as well as culture too.

    Olmec culture seems somewhat similar to Mayan but because the Olmec writing has never been deciphered who are not sure what their exact relation to the Maya was.

    They intermingled, cultural exchange is noted:

    The site shows incipient plaza and pyramid construction beginning before those seen in the lowlands or Olmec areas, suggesting a broader cultural exchange through to the Pacific Coast as Mayan cultures evolved.

    http://cyber.sci-hub.bz/MTAuMTEyNi9zY2llbmNlLjEyMzQ0OTM=/10.1126%40science.1234493.pdf

    Most other Mesoamerican cultures other than the Maya and Olmec also had writing.

    Right, but I specified writing that was created independently.

    There is some evidence that Egyptian writing was derived from Mesopotamian writing

    Makes sense. Citation?

    writing in China may have come from the west

    Citation?

    http://chemsites.chem.rutgers.edu/~kyc/Five%20Original%20Writing%20Systems.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @Afrosapiens
    Some historians and anthropologists make a difference between independently inventing the idea of writing, and inventing a script. For this reason, they claim that Sumer and the Mayas are the only civilizations that independently invented the idea of writing, whereas China, Egypt, and the Harappans could have gotten the idea of writing by being exposed to it by outsiders and then developed an independent script.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. Bill says:
    @res

    Yes, Pearl is who you want on this stuff. The linked posts are not even a little bit persuasive to anyone who actually knows anything about causation.
     
    I'd be interested in hearing more of your thoughts on this. I find the soil fertility argument compelling as a partial cause. It is hard to maintain a large (critical mass, not immense) functional society without adequate and robust enough soil fertility. One thing that seems to be a common theme in long-term successful societies is conventions that maintain the surrounding environment adequately (soil, fish, game animals, forests, etc.).

    That said, I find the arguments for proximity to seafood more compelling.

    I get the sense that here, as with so many things, the key is to be challenged (e.g. cold, agriculture) but not so much as to destroy the society at an extreme.

    Multivariate methods are not a way to magically infer causation from correlation, for example.
     
    Agreed they are not magic, and in particular can be troublesome when possible explanatory variables are highly correlated. What do you suggest instead? Multivariate methods are especially dangerous when there is a conscious effort to exclude likely causal variables in favor of effective proxies (which may also be causal in their own right, SES being a classic example).

    I haven't engaged with Pearl's work as much as I should. I became interested in probabilistic graphical models as a useful way to infer causation, but I have been disappointed at how little that is done.

    I don’t have an opinion on the question of how and why different levels of intelligence evolved in different places. Not something I know about.

    Agreed they are not magic, and in particular can be troublesome when possible explanatory variables are highly correlated. What do you suggest instead?

    Depends on the context. Experimental methods. Natural experiment methods. Instrumental variable (in the sense economists mean this phrase) methods.

    Failing all of those, you just have to make assumptions in order to identify the patterns of causation. Pearl’s stuff—I mean the applied stuff—is about guiding you through figuring out what exactly you have to assume in order to nail down the causation in any particular model.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. @RaceRealist88

    The first writing in Mesoamerica is Olmec writing not Mayan.
     
    I'm pretty certain the oldest date we have on Maya writing is between 200-300 BC.

    http://cyber.sci-hub.bz/MTAuMTEyNi9zY2llbmNlLjExMjE3NDU=/10.1126%40science.1121745.pdf

    For the Olmec, I believe the date is 500 BC. Do you have a paper to verify that claim?

    I know that the Maya and Olmecs traded people as well as culture too.

    Olmec culture seems somewhat similar to Mayan but because the Olmec writing has never been deciphered who are not sure what their exact relation to the Maya was.
     
    They intermingled, cultural exchange is noted:

    The site shows incipient plaza and pyramid construction beginning before those seen in the lowlands or Olmec areas, suggesting a broader cultural exchange through to the Pacific Coast as Mayan cultures evolved.

    http://cyber.sci-hub.bz/MTAuMTEyNi9zY2llbmNlLjEyMzQ0OTM=/10.1126%40science.1234493.pdf

    Most other Mesoamerican cultures other than the Maya and Olmec also had writing.
     
    Right, but I specified writing that was created independently.

    There is some evidence that Egyptian writing was derived from Mesopotamian writing
     
    Makes sense. Citation?

    writing in China may have come from the west
     
    Citation?

    http://chemsites.chem.rutgers.edu/~kyc/Five%20Original%20Writing%20Systems.html

    Some historians and anthropologists make a difference between independently inventing the idea of writing, and inventing a script. For this reason, they claim that Sumer and the Mayas are the only civilizations that independently invented the idea of writing, whereas China, Egypt, and the Harappans could have gotten the idea of writing by being exposed to it by outsiders and then developed an independent script.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. Bill says:
    @Afrosapiens

    Isn’t it funny when one guy links to a paper written by someone else,
     
    He did more than linking to a paper, he endorsed its conclusions.

    and then clueless commenter attacks the guy and his motives
     
    Who's clueless? Is it me, or the guy that says Singapore confirmation of the theory as if Singapore was a normal country, and that other places like Hawaii (or North Korea and China) are strong refutations of the same theory.

    On attacking the guy, I did not attack him, but when questions are asked and not answered, I can reasonably assume that the author is not willing to engage in logical argumentation. Ironically, the only objection he addressed was the one recalling that correlation does not equal causation, which he still finds disputable even though it is one of the most basic facts of logic. Also, you can compare this attitude with Chanda Chisala's well written posts and responses in the comments section. Nothing like the systematic dodging of pertinent remarks that we see here.

    This questionable attitude can't be explained by genuine interest in science, the reason might be time constraints, or boredom, but you can also make an inference from the site on which the article is posted. It could be a coincidence, but this site doesn't seem to be one that holds human equality and acceptance of diversity in high esteem.

    Once you've connected the dots (takes only a thousandth of a second), you can clearly see the motivations of the author. Amazing, isn't it?

    Also, you can compare this attitude with Chanda Chisala’s well written posts and responses in the comments section. Nothing like the systematic dodging of pertinent remarks that we see here.

    That’s delusional.

    Read More
    • Agree: res
    • Replies: @Afrosapiens

    That’s delusional.
     
    Care to elaborate?
    , @Okechukwu

    That’s delusional.
     
    Afrosapiens is correct. Chanda engages his detractors and, more often than not, wipes the floor with them. It helps when your assertions are rooted in reality and basic commonsense.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. @Bill

    Also, you can compare this attitude with Chanda Chisala’s well written posts and responses in the comments section. Nothing like the systematic dodging of pertinent remarks that we see here.
     
    That's delusional.

    That’s delusional.

    Care to elaborate?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. songbird says:
    @Afrosapiens

    Could be a wrong interpretation, but I’ve heard the Roman era Germans described as being somewhat similar to age of contact Native Americans.
     
    If you're referring to the Natives of the United States, I think ancient Celtic and Germanic peoples were more advanced than Native Americans, they were closer to West Africans, they had metal-working, larger settlements, more complex political organizations and I'd subjectively rate their artifacts as more advanced.

    But, the dense tree cover of the northern half of Europe must have prevented further development until the large scale deforestation during the Middle Ages.

    That’s right: US Native Americans. No arguments that the Germans were not significantly more advanced. I mean more purely in the sense of population density. I would suppose ancient Germany was a very volatile area too. Probably lots of warfare, which would maybe keep numbers lower than on a peninsula or island.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. Okechukwu says:
    @Bill

    Also, you can compare this attitude with Chanda Chisala’s well written posts and responses in the comments section. Nothing like the systematic dodging of pertinent remarks that we see here.
     
    That's delusional.

    That’s delusional.

    Afrosapiens is correct. Chanda engages his detractors and, more often than not, wipes the floor with them. It helps when your assertions are rooted in reality and basic commonsense.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. I mean more purely in the sense of population density. I would suppose ancient Germany was a very volatile area too. Probably lots of warfare, which would maybe keep numbers lower than on a peninsula or island.

    I have no idea about warfare, however I agree with your remark on topography. Peninsulas, isthmuses islands, valleys and plateaus increase population densities and are conductive to civilization. Italy or Greece are what we most commonly think as peninsulas, but on a larger scale, Europe is a peninsula of Eurasia whereas North America is a typical continental mass. In addition to that, maps render higher latitude regions as larger than they actually are. The area between the Baltic and the North seas to the north and the Alps and the Carpathians to the south is actually much smaller than it looks on the maps. Germany is just as large as Montana.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  77. Factorize says:

    The mean average temperatures figure at the start of this thread made me think of Why Nations Fail.
    In this book the authors argue that colonies that were established in the tropics such as Haiti and others were based on an “extractive” model of development which used slave labor to harvest sugar cane and other intensive agricultural products.

    In contrast, in Canada and the Northern US only less intensive agriculture (e.g., wheat) could be grown. This difference, the authors propose, resulted in substantially different social outcomes centuries later. The economic and political power resulting from the farm economy in Canada and the Northern US allowed for more broadly egalitarian societies. Attempts were made in several colonies (including America and Australia) to impose elite rule enforced on penalty of violence, though local circumstances made these tactics untenable.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Europe also was a very unequal place with many people living in poverty. Indeed (industrialized) developed countries that enjoy very good standard living is a very recent thing. I'm not saying the economic model of colonies wasn't a factor to explain partly this differences but I know it wasn't only one.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. @Factorize
    The mean average temperatures figure at the start of this thread made me think of Why Nations Fail.
    In this book the authors argue that colonies that were established in the tropics such as Haiti and others were based on an "extractive" model of development which used slave labor to harvest sugar cane and other intensive agricultural products.

    In contrast, in Canada and the Northern US only less intensive agriculture (e.g., wheat) could be grown. This difference, the authors propose, resulted in substantially different social outcomes centuries later. The economic and political power resulting from the farm economy in Canada and the Northern US allowed for more broadly egalitarian societies. Attempts were made in several colonies (including America and Australia) to impose elite rule enforced on penalty of violence, though local circumstances made these tactics untenable.

    Europe also was a very unequal place with many people living in poverty. Indeed (industrialized) developed countries that enjoy very good standard living is a very recent thing. I’m not saying the economic model of colonies wasn’t a factor to explain partly this differences but I know it wasn’t only one.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. @DESERT FOX
    Look up at the sky and see those planes spraying white lines across the sky and making giant X and tic tac toe grids across the sky , etc. and these planes are configured just like the planes that sprayed AGENT ORANGE over the jungles of Vietnam and all the people of Vietnam and our troops.

    I have personally witnessed this chemtrail spraying here in Montana for 30 years and again yesterday this spraying turned a blue sky into a haze of white streaks by noon from the dozen or more planes that were spraying and this spray is affecting not only our air but the water and the soil and the plants and trees.

    Read the book ANGELS DONT PLAY THIS HAARP by Nick Begich , it can be had on amazon.com.

    These chemtrails are definitely real and ” they” are doing it. I’ve never considered the angle of dumbing people down though , that’s a new one. I wouldn’t put it past them . I always figured chemtrails were for reducing solar gain.
    There is definitely evil involved. It’s the 21st century and we’re still talking about evil.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DESERT FOX
    A certain percent of the chemtrail spray is nano particles of aluminum and we are taking it in via the water and air and soil and aluminum is one of the causes of alzheimers , and that is destroying a persons brain, so if we connect the dots ie.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. utu says:
    @simplyamazed
    Here is a mathematical proof put forward by Michael Lamar, Assistant Professor of Statistics at the link: https://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-examples-of-causation-without-correlation

    Let X and Y be independent Bernoulli random variables with parameter 0.5. In other words, each is equally likely to be zero or one independently of the other.

    Now let Z=1
    if X=Y and let Z=0 if X≠Y. It shouldn’t take long to figure out that Z is also equally likely to be zero and one. But even though Z's value is explicitly determined based on the value of X and Y, it turns out that Z is independent of each. To see why, for x∈{0,1}, we find that: P(Z=1|X=x)=P(X=Y|X=x)=P(Y=x|X=x)=P(Y=x)=0.5=P(Z=1)

    So the conditional distribution of Z
    given X is the same as the unconditional distribution of Z. So Z and X are independent (and thus uncorrelated). Similarly, Z and Y are independent (and thus uncorrelated). But clearly X and Y cause Z in the strongest sense of causation since the value of Z is completely determined by whether or not X and Y match.

    It is an interesting mathematical construction but I do not think that it is of much practical consequence.

    In order to talk about correlation between X and Y both variables must have some representation in real numbers. In order to talk about causal relationship X–>Y it means that there must exist some function that maps X to Y, i.e., the value of X determines the value of Y. It is very easy to construct functions that produce zero correlation. In fact all periodic functions will do it, say Y=sin(X) if X varies over large number of periods. Periodic functions are not 1-to-1. Not all 1-to-1 functions produce non-zero correlation. However if we impose constraint that the function must be also monotonic, say increasing that if X1<X2 then f(X1)<f(X2) then certainly correlation will be non-zero. Monotonicity is a very reasonable and broad assumption.

    Read More
    • Replies: @simplyamazed
    For a practical example of how this idea has meaning in the real world, we can look to control functions. Without causal relationships control is clearly impossible, but successful control means - roughly speaking - that some quantity is being maintained constant, which implies it won't be correlated with anything, including whatever things are causing it to be constant.

    So in this situation, concluding no causal relationship from lack of correlation would be a mistake.

    I refer you to the following link for an interesting discussion of a real world example:

    http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhile_canadian_initi/2012/07/why-are-almost-all-economists-unaware-of-milton-friedmans-thermostat.html
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Okechukwu

    Actually, he does not need to do much convincing. Most of the world including people in Africa for wrong or right reasons already believe that there is a significant cognitive deficit among Sub Saharan Africans.
     
    Actually, no. Sub-Saharan Africans ultimately rejected colonialism because upon interaction with Europeans they didn't find them to be cognitively superior. Often they found the opposite to be the case.

    As far as the rest of the world, I haven't found that they ascribe the myriad problems in Africa to intellectual deficiencies. That's hardly in the top 100 list of potential causes. The largest corporations in the world are making a beeline to Africa to leverage the intellectual capital there.

    People like Dr. Thompson or Davide Piffer or our res here would just like to get a scientific confirmation for this prejudice.
     
    Bingo! Jackpot! You are absolutely correct. But they will fail as their predecessors have failed for hundreds if not thousands of years.

    If however iq phenotype will be correlated to within the twin studies heritability with the genotype and a significant racial differences will established then you and Afrosapiens are fucked.
     
    Yeah, fucked among a tiny fringe of keyboard racists sitting in their trailer parks. Hardly fucked in the real world which enshrines individuality. Furthermore, no one disputes that intelligence has a heritable component. Establishing that fact in twin studies wouldn't uphold supremacist ideologies.

    Then you and Afrosapiens will be the first who will want to have their IQ tattooed on their foreheads to signal that you are above the expected value of your racial groups.
     
    Haha. You should write for Hollywood. That's a fictitious dystopian future that is just begging for a talented scriptwriter to treat. Big hint: It'll never happen in the real world.

    Okechukwu and Afrosapiens Europe is not really a place for you
     
    I don't live in Europe, as you know. I would never live in Europe because I can't stand soccer. Afro seems to be doing just fine there, however, as are millions of other blacks. My own relatives live in England and get on just fine there. Some of them speak such a thickly accented British English that I can barely understand what they're saying. Often when I drift off into peculiarly Southern California speech patterns, they say the same about me. Surely those are examples of mimicry, no?

    Actually, no. Sub-Saharan Africans ultimately rejected colonialism because upon interaction with Europeans they didn’t find them to be cognitively superior.

    Don’t be absurd. Sub-Saharan Africans never accepted colonialism, they merely had to take it, because, as Hillaire Belloc wrote:

    Whatever happens,
    we have got.
    The Maxim gun,
    and they have not.

    Once, the Soviets supplied you lot with guns of your own, you kicked the colonial powers in the arse as any self-respecting people would. Well done. But don’t make nonsense of history by attributing what happened to racial differences in IQ.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. @Chinookwind
    These chemtrails are definitely real and " they" are doing it. I've never considered the angle of dumbing people down though , that's a new one. I wouldn't put it past them . I always figured chemtrails were for reducing solar gain.
    There is definitely evil involved. It's the 21st century and we're still talking about evil.

    A certain percent of the chemtrail spray is nano particles of aluminum and we are taking it in via the water and air and soil and aluminum is one of the causes of alzheimers , and that is destroying a persons brain, so if we connect the dots ie.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. This thread seems an appropriate place to ask for professional or otherwise considered and informed responses to this

    https://www.amren.com/ar/2009/02/

    “Morality and Abstract Thinking”.

    I don’t know anything about Gedallah Braun other than what he tells us about his experience of teaching philosophy over many years in Africa, including Nigeria, Kenya and South Africa where he apparently now lives.

    Some may find some of what he says offensively, stupidly wrong (Afrosapiens and Okechukwu maybe? As well of course as any interns at SPLC) but he does present actual observational evidence which he doesn’t very obviously put excessive weight on. So….

    To Dr JT in particular I would like to proceed on the assumption that much of what he reports is true and to seek to explain it and to consider its implications.

    Questions that particularly struck me were those which depended on people having a purely oral culture and correspondingly many fewer and probably less analysed words than those in longstanding literate cultures.

    Among the test questions would be ones relating to the age of a literate cultures as contributing to precision and sophistication, whether having an actively literate class which is at least X per cent of the population makes enough difference to distinguish societies where most people are illiterate from those where the language itself is not a written one.

    (I am interpolating here a question for linguists – something like a Sapir-Whorff question perhaps – which would distinguish languages according to how easy it is to coin an abstract expression by some simple suffix or other device).

    Then I would question Braun’s broad sweep in which the lack of abstract thinking he associates with not keeping promises e.g. is equated to a lack of abstract thinking about time, number and space. Why? Because Australian Aborigines are famous for their creation myths and dreamtime stories. (If someone wishes to say that those actually support the Braun thesis because that kind of thinking about the past is sui generis and without any connection to practical cause and effect thinking or to thinking about the future, then I am listening).

    Does abstract thinking correlate with IQ scores? I would expect so though partly because one of the explanations of the Flynn Effect advanced by Flynn himself. His example that stuck in my mind is what farmer and son might well have said in 1890 compared with 1990 in answer to the question “what do foxes and rabbits have in common?”. 1890 they say “hunting”. In 1990 they would have said “both are mammals”.

    Accepting that Braun’s observations are not totally vitiated by dishonesty or plain error it would be interesting to predict with justifying analysis how and why and how much change there will be in whatever of his valid observations make one concerned about Africans’ enjoying the best aspects of modernity in future.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    That was interesting. Thanks. Braun wrote a book about this. Reviews available at: https://www.amazon.com/s/field-keywords=Gedaliah+Braun
    https://store.amren.com/product/racism-guilt/

    Does abstract thinking correlate with IQ scores?
     
    I think the simple answer is yes. The follow-on question is: how is that reflected in the subtests? Perhaps one of the more IQ test knowledgeable people here can comment on that?

    Some comments on the racial IQ gap from a book:
    https://books.google.com/books?id=LfTlBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA292
    The reference they give is https://www.researchgate.net/publication/19795259_Sex_race_residence_region_and_education_differences_on_the_11_WAIS-R_subtests

    That paper discusses sex and race differences (and more) for the 11 WAIS-R subtests and presents the results in a variety of ways. For sex differences I think Table 4 is easiest to interpret. It expresses the differences by sex for each age group and subtest as Cohen's d. Females performed consistently better on the Digit Symbol subtest. Males performed better on Information, Arithmetic, Block Design (see below) and a few others.

    Black-White differences are shown in a similar form in Table 6.

    More about the WAIS-R and its subtests: http://www.cps.nova.edu/~cpphelp/WAIS-R.html

    This scoresheet specifically calls out subtests 6. Similarities and 9. Block Design as measuring verbal and nonverbal abstract reasoning respectively: http://www.htctu.net/publications/dsps/content/ldforms/WAIS-Rfo.pdf

    Block Design is the subtest showing the largest black-white gap (suggestive in the context of your comment IMHO), while Similarities is in the middle.

    Conclusion 3 observes that the popular Vocabulary-Block Design dyad short form test should be avoided because it unfairly penalizes blacks (their two relatively worst subtests).

    P.S. There is also detailed information about subtest scores by educational level. Table 12 presents this as correlations.

    P.P.S. Although that paper is old (1988) it was very interesting with detailed data presented.
    , @Okechukwu
    Note the source: American Renaissance.

    The supremacist tendencies harbored by people like Braun and their dismissive attitudes toward non-whites have been devastating to the Europeans themselves. At Isandlwana, it resulted in 1300 British troops dying on the battlefield and crying for momma. Ultimately, it resulted in whites getting thrown out of Africa. It resulted in the tragedy of Vietnam, and more recently, Iraq and Afghanistan. It seems you folks will never learn that you're not superior to anyone.

    Language, by the way, is an abstract system. That's all human languages. I was exposed to two languages in equal measure growing up: English and Igbo. I found Igbo to be far more difficult to negotiate, far more complicated and complex. There are a million ways to convey in Igbo all the thoughts, ideas and concepts that Braun claims is missing in African languages.

    I also have a somewhat superficial fluency in Efik, my mother's language. If I immersed myself in it over a period of a few months, I could speak it like a native. So with an admittedly small sample size of these two African languages, I haven't found that they lack any of the accouterments of complex or abstract expression. Speaking of my mother, she is fluent in English, Igbo, Efik and Hausa. It seems to me that of these four languages, if English is the one that has imbued its native speakers with enhanced cognition, my mother's own fluency in it would suffer -- and it hasn't. Her competency is well above average, or superior to the average native English speaker. And yet for her it's a fourth language.

    What separates people is culture. As someone who has straddled two cultures I have intimate knowledge of this phenomenon. People's brains literally aren't wired differently but their experiences, histories and influences will shape how they interact with the world. There are aspects of European culture which seemed primitive, unrefined and unsophisticated to Africans. The notion of moving into an area and shooting everything that moves, for example. Europeans extincted animals with which Africans had lived in harmony for thousands of years. They are only now beginning to recognize that they were indeed backwards and that their alleged vaunted capacity for abstract thought could not conceive or foresee what Africans had known for millennia. That to destroy your environment is to destroy yourself. That nature has a fragile balance, and that to remove lions, for example, could collapse the entire system.

    From the article:

    I believe that morality requires abstract thinking—as does planning for the future—and that a relative deficiency in abstract thinking may explain many things that are typically African.

    You do realize that this indictment could easily be applied to white Europeans, right? Perhaps vastly more so than to Africans.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. @simplyamazed
    "Merely" in the sense that it is not a causal element, just a factor, however potent, that activates a causal element.

    Tumour suppressor genes when inactivated are causal factors for certain kinds of cancer when their function is absent. As a result, their correlation is extremely difficult to demonstrate using statistical methods; some describe the statistical correlation as statistically insignificant. They were discovered using functional analysis.

    A clarification is in order. When I mentioned functional analysis I was using this description in a more general sense and had forgotten that it has a technical definition in mathematics.

    I should have made it clear that what I meant was analysis of actual intercellular function. Cellular proliferation is controlled in normal cells by what has been colloquially referred to as “accellerators” and “brakes”. Accellerators stimulate cellular proliferation whereas brakes stop or slow cellular proliferation. Tumour suppressor genes are associated with the “brakes”. Such functions operate in signalling pathways. Since the genes associated with “brakes” often are widely distributed in the body in many organs and structures, associating their disregulation (lack of function) with a particular cancer generates such a weak correlation that it can safely be judged as lack of correlation. However, studying their role in signalling pathways established a causal relationship between disregulation and tumour growth.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. @utu
    It is an interesting mathematical construction but I do not think that it is of much practical consequence.

    In order to talk about correlation between X and Y both variables must have some representation in real numbers. In order to talk about causal relationship X-->Y it means that there must exist some function that maps X to Y, i.e., the value of X determines the value of Y. It is very easy to construct functions that produce zero correlation. In fact all periodic functions will do it, say Y=sin(X) if X varies over large number of periods. Periodic functions are not 1-to-1. Not all 1-to-1 functions produce non-zero correlation. However if we impose constraint that the function must be also monotonic, say increasing that if X1<X2 then f(X1)<f(X2) then certainly correlation will be non-zero. Monotonicity is a very reasonable and broad assumption.

    For a practical example of how this idea has meaning in the real world, we can look to control functions. Without causal relationships control is clearly impossible, but successful control means – roughly speaking – that some quantity is being maintained constant, which implies it won’t be correlated with anything, including whatever things are causing it to be constant.

    So in this situation, concluding no causal relationship from lack of correlation would be a mistake.

    I refer you to the following link for an interesting discussion of a real world example:

    http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhile_canadian_initi/2012/07/why-are-almost-all-economists-unaware-of-milton-friedmans-thermostat.html

    Read More
    • Agree: Stephen R. Diamond
    • Replies: @utu
    In the real world no control function can maintain anything exactly constant.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. @Afrosapiens

    Most of the world including people in Africa for wrong or right reasons already believe that there is a significant cognitive deficit among Sub Saharan Africans.
     
    Most of the world, especially in Africa would laugh at the idea of measuring intelligence. Most of the world, especially in Africa have other conceptions of human worth.

    Then you and Afrosapiens will be the first who will want to have their IQ tattooed on their foreheads to signal that you are above the expected value of your racial groups.
     
    LOL! I'd kill myself before doing something that stupid. I know it's a metaphor that you're using, but anyway, I've never felt that I had something to prove because I'm black, my accomplishments speak for themselves and they were effortless.

    So sorry Okechukwu and Afrosapiens Europe is not really a place for you. Your presence there would be detrimental to harmonious existence of European customs and culture. I am sure you two could contribute a lot in Haiti and anywhere in Africa which is many times larger than Europe. Go South young men.
     
    LMAO! I don't give a damn about "harmonious existence blah blah blah". All I care about is my girlfriend, my family and friends who need me here as much as I need them.

    Europeans really don't need us to destroy each other. Without us, they'd be declining like Japan.

    “declining like Japan”

    Very witty. I wish the UK could decline like Japan.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/08/opinion/sunday/the-true-story-of-japans-economic-success.html

    https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/02/the-myth-of-japans-lost-decades/71741/

    “At the heart of my analysis is a story of extraordinary progress by Japanese manufacturing. The reason you don’t hear much about Japanese manufacturers these days is that the best of them have moved from making consumer goods to concentrate on so-called producers’ goods — items that though invisible to the consumer happen to be critical to the world economy. Such goods include the highly miniaturized components, advanced materials, and super-precise machines that less sophisticated nations such as China need to make final consumer goods. The label on everything from cell phones to laptop computers may say “Made in China” but actually, via producers’ goods, highly capital-intensive and knowhow-intensive manufacturers in Japan have quietly done much of the most technologically demanding work.

    In the early years after World War II the United States utterly dominated the higher reaches of the producers’ goods business. Under pressure from foreign competition, however, American players one by one have closed down or outsourced in the last quarter of a century. The competition has come principally from Japan, which now enjoys broadly as dominant and geopolitically important a position as the United States did in the 1960s. Even if you don’t hear much about this from the Tokyo talking heads, it is hard to miss it in global trade figures. (Fact: America’s current account deficit multiplied five-fold in the 20 years to 2010 and the reason in large measure is because American corporations have exited the producers’ goods business.)”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Japan needs more migrants to use their gibsmedats and enrich Japanese women.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. Megalomaniacal levels of many, majority of Africans is impressive. “Africans don’t find European cognitively superior”. Even I’m against the way industrialization has been made, what??? And also keep in mind the very morally wrong (but logically correct/via food chain) law of stronger. European”s” dominate entire world until beginning of XX century. Western European civilization became synonyms of progress, standard of the best in technology humans has been capable to forge. Right now original westerners are losing this battle but not via direct confront among forces. Ok, so called Aryans has been proved a myth about its super human superiority, but…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  88. Factorize says:

    Santoculto, thank you for your reply.

    I had had no idea that the original plan for the new colonies in America, Canada, Australia and others was to establish new feudal states. All the American states attempted to enslave their white citizens, though with the endless frontier this was simply not possible.
    Democracies emerged in the New World only after it became very clear that elite rule would not be feasible.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Settlement and exploitation colonies is one of the first stuff we learn in history lessons and it's have some or many grain of truth, no doubt about it, but...

    I really don't know what was the original reasons to the european geographical adventures, it seems wasn't well organized or deliberated because europeans don't knew what they were going to find.

    To say: ''they wanted to create a feudal states in other places'' seems incorrect.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. @Afrosapiens

    Most of the world including people in Africa for wrong or right reasons already believe that there is a significant cognitive deficit among Sub Saharan Africans.
     
    Most of the world, especially in Africa would laugh at the idea of measuring intelligence. Most of the world, especially in Africa have other conceptions of human worth.

    Then you and Afrosapiens will be the first who will want to have their IQ tattooed on their foreheads to signal that you are above the expected value of your racial groups.
     
    LOL! I'd kill myself before doing something that stupid. I know it's a metaphor that you're using, but anyway, I've never felt that I had something to prove because I'm black, my accomplishments speak for themselves and they were effortless.

    So sorry Okechukwu and Afrosapiens Europe is not really a place for you. Your presence there would be detrimental to harmonious existence of European customs and culture. I am sure you two could contribute a lot in Haiti and anywhere in Africa which is many times larger than Europe. Go South young men.
     
    LMAO! I don't give a damn about "harmonious existence blah blah blah". All I care about is my girlfriend, my family and friends who need me here as much as I need them.

    Europeans really don't need us to destroy each other. Without us, they'd be declining like Japan.

    Very sad to see China’s constant decline, too. Need more Africans esp. unselected for skills and uninterested in sacrificing what Chinese call “blood and capital” for the future.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    That Kang's post demonstrates Negro ingratitude, parasitism, and delusions of grandeur.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. @Factorize
    Santoculto, thank you for your reply.

    I had had no idea that the original plan for the new colonies in America, Canada, Australia and others was to establish new feudal states. All the American states attempted to enslave their white citizens, though with the endless frontier this was simply not possible.
    Democracies emerged in the New World only after it became very clear that elite rule would not be feasible.

    Settlement and exploitation colonies is one of the first stuff we learn in history lessons and it’s have some or many grain of truth, no doubt about it, but…

    I really don’t know what was the original reasons to the european geographical adventures, it seems wasn’t well organized or deliberated because europeans don’t knew what they were going to find.

    To say: ”they wanted to create a feudal states in other places” seems incorrect.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    We learn that they [iberians] start this ''adventures'' firstly to find a new route to the indian spices because mediterranean sea and sorrounds was dominated by ''arabs'' merchants/middlemen. That's explain or it was we have learned why they started to call ''american natives'' as indians, because they believed they had arrived in India. About portuguese circumnavigation in african coasts, i don't know why, maybe other way to find new routes to indian spices.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. @Santoculto
    Settlement and exploitation colonies is one of the first stuff we learn in history lessons and it's have some or many grain of truth, no doubt about it, but...

    I really don't know what was the original reasons to the european geographical adventures, it seems wasn't well organized or deliberated because europeans don't knew what they were going to find.

    To say: ''they wanted to create a feudal states in other places'' seems incorrect.

    We learn that they [iberians] start this ”adventures” firstly to find a new route to the indian spices because mediterranean sea and sorrounds was dominated by ”arabs” merchants/middlemen. That’s explain or it was we have learned why they started to call ”american natives” as indians, because they believed they had arrived in India. About portuguese circumnavigation in african coasts, i don’t know why, maybe other way to find new routes to indian spices.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. res says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    This thread seems an appropriate place to ask for professional or otherwise considered and informed responses to this

    https://www.amren.com/ar/2009/02/
    "Morality and Abstract Thinking".

    I don't know anything about Gedallah Braun other than what he tells us about his experience of teaching philosophy over many years in Africa, including Nigeria, Kenya and South Africa where he apparently now lives.

    Some may find some of what he says offensively, stupidly wrong (Afrosapiens and Okechukwu maybe? As well of course as any interns at SPLC) but he does present actual observational evidence which he doesn't very obviously put excessive weight on. So....

    To Dr JT in particular I would like to proceed on the assumption that much of what he reports is true and to seek to explain it and to consider its implications.

    Questions that particularly struck me were those which depended on people having a purely oral culture and correspondingly many fewer and probably less analysed words than those in longstanding literate cultures.

    Among the test questions would be ones relating to the age of a literate cultures as contributing to precision and sophistication, whether having an actively literate class which is at least X per cent of the population makes enough difference to distinguish societies where most people are illiterate from those where the language itself is not a written one.

    (I am interpolating here a question for linguists - something like a Sapir-Whorff question perhaps - which would distinguish languages according to how easy it is to coin an abstract expression by some simple suffix or other device).

    Then I would question Braun's broad sweep in which the lack of abstract thinking he associates with not keeping promises e.g. is equated to a lack of abstract thinking about time, number and space. Why? Because Australian Aborigines are famous for their creation myths and dreamtime stories. (If someone wishes to say that those actually support the Braun thesis because that kind of thinking about the past is sui generis and without any connection to practical cause and effect thinking or to thinking about the future, then I am listening).

    Does abstract thinking correlate with IQ scores? I would expect so though partly because one of the explanations of the Flynn Effect advanced by Flynn himself. His example that stuck in my mind is what farmer and son might well have said in 1890 compared with 1990 in answer to the question "what do foxes and rabbits have in common?". 1890 they say "hunting". In 1990 they would have said "both are mammals".

    Accepting that Braun's observations are not totally vitiated by dishonesty or plain error it would be interesting to predict with justifying analysis how and why and how much change there will be in whatever of his valid observations make one concerned about Africans' enjoying the best aspects of modernity in future.

    That was interesting. Thanks. Braun wrote a book about this. Reviews available at: https://www.amazon.com/s/field-keywords=Gedaliah+Braun

    https://store.amren.com/product/racism-guilt/

    Does abstract thinking correlate with IQ scores?

    I think the simple answer is yes. The follow-on question is: how is that reflected in the subtests? Perhaps one of the more IQ test knowledgeable people here can comment on that?

    Some comments on the racial IQ gap from a book:

    https://books.google.com/books?id=LfTlBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA292

    The reference they give is https://www.researchgate.net/publication/19795259_Sex_race_residence_region_and_education_differences_on_the_11_WAIS-R_subtests

    That paper discusses sex and race differences (and more) for the 11 WAIS-R subtests and presents the results in a variety of ways. For sex differences I think Table 4 is easiest to interpret. It expresses the differences by sex for each age group and subtest as Cohen’s d. Females performed consistently better on the Digit Symbol subtest. Males performed better on Information, Arithmetic, Block Design (see below) and a few others.

    Black-White differences are shown in a similar form in Table 6.

    More about the WAIS-R and its subtests: http://www.cps.nova.edu/~cpphelp/WAIS-R.html

    This scoresheet specifically calls out subtests 6. Similarities and 9. Block Design as measuring verbal and nonverbal abstract reasoning respectively: http://www.htctu.net/publications/dsps/content/ldforms/WAIS-Rfo.pdf

    Block Design is the subtest showing the largest black-white gap (suggestive in the context of your comment IMHO), while Similarities is in the middle.

    Conclusion 3 observes that the popular Vocabulary-Block Design dyad short form test should be avoided because it unfairly penalizes blacks (their two relatively worst subtests).

    P.S. There is also detailed information about subtest scores by educational level. Table 12 presents this as correlations.

    P.P.S. Although that paper is old (1988) it was very interesting with detailed data presented.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. utu says:
    @simplyamazed
    For a practical example of how this idea has meaning in the real world, we can look to control functions. Without causal relationships control is clearly impossible, but successful control means - roughly speaking - that some quantity is being maintained constant, which implies it won't be correlated with anything, including whatever things are causing it to be constant.

    So in this situation, concluding no causal relationship from lack of correlation would be a mistake.

    I refer you to the following link for an interesting discussion of a real world example:

    http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhile_canadian_initi/2012/07/why-are-almost-all-economists-unaware-of-milton-friedmans-thermostat.html

    In the real world no control function can maintain anything exactly constant.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond
    You have a flair for the irrelevant. Well, yes, there's no perfect absence of correlation, but that's utterly beside the point.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. Okechukwu says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    This thread seems an appropriate place to ask for professional or otherwise considered and informed responses to this

    https://www.amren.com/ar/2009/02/
    "Morality and Abstract Thinking".

    I don't know anything about Gedallah Braun other than what he tells us about his experience of teaching philosophy over many years in Africa, including Nigeria, Kenya and South Africa where he apparently now lives.

    Some may find some of what he says offensively, stupidly wrong (Afrosapiens and Okechukwu maybe? As well of course as any interns at SPLC) but he does present actual observational evidence which he doesn't very obviously put excessive weight on. So....

    To Dr JT in particular I would like to proceed on the assumption that much of what he reports is true and to seek to explain it and to consider its implications.

    Questions that particularly struck me were those which depended on people having a purely oral culture and correspondingly many fewer and probably less analysed words than those in longstanding literate cultures.

    Among the test questions would be ones relating to the age of a literate cultures as contributing to precision and sophistication, whether having an actively literate class which is at least X per cent of the population makes enough difference to distinguish societies where most people are illiterate from those where the language itself is not a written one.

    (I am interpolating here a question for linguists - something like a Sapir-Whorff question perhaps - which would distinguish languages according to how easy it is to coin an abstract expression by some simple suffix or other device).

    Then I would question Braun's broad sweep in which the lack of abstract thinking he associates with not keeping promises e.g. is equated to a lack of abstract thinking about time, number and space. Why? Because Australian Aborigines are famous for their creation myths and dreamtime stories. (If someone wishes to say that those actually support the Braun thesis because that kind of thinking about the past is sui generis and without any connection to practical cause and effect thinking or to thinking about the future, then I am listening).

    Does abstract thinking correlate with IQ scores? I would expect so though partly because one of the explanations of the Flynn Effect advanced by Flynn himself. His example that stuck in my mind is what farmer and son might well have said in 1890 compared with 1990 in answer to the question "what do foxes and rabbits have in common?". 1890 they say "hunting". In 1990 they would have said "both are mammals".

    Accepting that Braun's observations are not totally vitiated by dishonesty or plain error it would be interesting to predict with justifying analysis how and why and how much change there will be in whatever of his valid observations make one concerned about Africans' enjoying the best aspects of modernity in future.

    Note the source: American Renaissance.

    The supremacist tendencies harbored by people like Braun and their dismissive attitudes toward non-whites have been devastating to the Europeans themselves. At Isandlwana, it resulted in 1300 British troops dying on the battlefield and crying for momma. Ultimately, it resulted in whites getting thrown out of Africa. It resulted in the tragedy of Vietnam, and more recently, Iraq and Afghanistan. It seems you folks will never learn that you’re not superior to anyone.

    Language, by the way, is an abstract system. That’s all human languages. I was exposed to two languages in equal measure growing up: English and Igbo. I found Igbo to be far more difficult to negotiate, far more complicated and complex. There are a million ways to convey in Igbo all the thoughts, ideas and concepts that Braun claims is missing in African languages.

    I also have a somewhat superficial fluency in Efik, my mother’s language. If I immersed myself in it over a period of a few months, I could speak it like a native. So with an admittedly small sample size of these two African languages, I haven’t found that they lack any of the accouterments of complex or abstract expression. Speaking of my mother, she is fluent in English, Igbo, Efik and Hausa. It seems to me that of these four languages, if English is the one that has imbued its native speakers with enhanced cognition, my mother’s own fluency in it would suffer — and it hasn’t. Her competency is well above average, or superior to the average native English speaker. And yet for her it’s a fourth language.

    What separates people is culture. As someone who has straddled two cultures I have intimate knowledge of this phenomenon. People’s brains literally aren’t wired differently but their experiences, histories and influences will shape how they interact with the world. There are aspects of European culture which seemed primitive, unrefined and unsophisticated to Africans. The notion of moving into an area and shooting everything that moves, for example. Europeans extincted animals with which Africans had lived in harmony for thousands of years. They are only now beginning to recognize that they were indeed backwards and that their alleged vaunted capacity for abstract thought could not conceive or foresee what Africans had known for millennia. That to destroy your environment is to destroy yourself. That nature has a fragile balance, and that to remove lions, for example, could collapse the entire system.

    From the article:

    I believe that morality requires abstract thinking—as does planning for the future—and that a relative deficiency in abstract thinking may explain many things that are typically African.

    You do realize that this indictment could easily be applied to white Europeans, right? Perhaps vastly more so than to Africans.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    This is the most elaborate excuse for being constantly thrashed like little bitches i have read in some time. Also Afghanistan and Vietnam people aren't ssa, you know.
    , @utu
    Language of successful cultures and civilizations are actually often less complex in syntax. Chinese and English are good examples of languages with a very simple syntax. Complexity of language can be a hindrance.

    The notion of moving into an area and shooting everything that moves, for example.

    Obviously you simplify. Indigenous people were responsible for extinction of many species. It is matter of means. Africans just did not have means to kill everything that moves. Who killed mammoth in North America or large birds in New Zealand? Tell me about the thriving fauna in Haiti? During the Great Depression it was very hard to find deer in woods in America. Hunting was a necessity for survival for poor rural Americans. Now there is too many deer.
    , @hyperbola

    Language, by the way, is an abstract system. That’s all human languages. I was exposed to two languages in equal measure growing up: English and Igbo. I found Igbo to be far more difficult to negotiate, far more complicated and complex. There are a million ways to convey in Igbo all the thoughts, ideas and concepts that Braun claims is missing in African languages.
     
    Languages are a funny business. I have managed five so far, three of which are "european", one of which is melanesian and one of which is Indian subcontinent. All of them were learned in situ, i.e. in the country where the language was in its home country. I find that there are things that are most fluidly expressed in one language - the same things can usually be expressed in other languages (sort of), but much more clumsily. These are mostly cultural differences, but they are real. As for English, whose English? I never learned Nigerian English, but I did manage to master four different local varieties of English in non-home countries. Tongue in cheek, I suggest that English is one of the more difficult languages to master (at high level - there are MANY local pidgin versions that are very simple to learn) because it is such a mongrel/bastard/stolen mixture of precision words from other languages with little or no phonetic or spelling regularity.

    As for homogenization - heaven forbid please. Nothing more boring than the world becoming culturally homogenized by hollywood.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Thank you for that interesting reply.

    I am surprised that you do not point to the problem of much discussion by the likes of Lynn, Rushton and probably Braun that their data samples are far too small and limited to represent the enormous genetic variety within Africa that contrasts with the narrow out of Africa lineages of the rest of humanity. By accident and by mostly natural selection there could be mini Indias within African regions and maybe even within people of one language group that had castes. Aren't Igbo known for being smart ("Jews of Africa" I see is treated as more than metaphorical by some)? And also as having castes?

    Perhaps Braun has detected a real connection between the kind of abstract thinking that supports morality in any but the simplest circumstances and IQ. That might have as much to do with class, with the Flynn Effect and with moves from rural to sophisticated urban lives as with genes for cognition.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Okechukwu
    Note the source: American Renaissance.

    The supremacist tendencies harbored by people like Braun and their dismissive attitudes toward non-whites have been devastating to the Europeans themselves. At Isandlwana, it resulted in 1300 British troops dying on the battlefield and crying for momma. Ultimately, it resulted in whites getting thrown out of Africa. It resulted in the tragedy of Vietnam, and more recently, Iraq and Afghanistan. It seems you folks will never learn that you're not superior to anyone.

    Language, by the way, is an abstract system. That's all human languages. I was exposed to two languages in equal measure growing up: English and Igbo. I found Igbo to be far more difficult to negotiate, far more complicated and complex. There are a million ways to convey in Igbo all the thoughts, ideas and concepts that Braun claims is missing in African languages.

    I also have a somewhat superficial fluency in Efik, my mother's language. If I immersed myself in it over a period of a few months, I could speak it like a native. So with an admittedly small sample size of these two African languages, I haven't found that they lack any of the accouterments of complex or abstract expression. Speaking of my mother, she is fluent in English, Igbo, Efik and Hausa. It seems to me that of these four languages, if English is the one that has imbued its native speakers with enhanced cognition, my mother's own fluency in it would suffer -- and it hasn't. Her competency is well above average, or superior to the average native English speaker. And yet for her it's a fourth language.

    What separates people is culture. As someone who has straddled two cultures I have intimate knowledge of this phenomenon. People's brains literally aren't wired differently but their experiences, histories and influences will shape how they interact with the world. There are aspects of European culture which seemed primitive, unrefined and unsophisticated to Africans. The notion of moving into an area and shooting everything that moves, for example. Europeans extincted animals with which Africans had lived in harmony for thousands of years. They are only now beginning to recognize that they were indeed backwards and that their alleged vaunted capacity for abstract thought could not conceive or foresee what Africans had known for millennia. That to destroy your environment is to destroy yourself. That nature has a fragile balance, and that to remove lions, for example, could collapse the entire system.

    From the article:

    I believe that morality requires abstract thinking—as does planning for the future—and that a relative deficiency in abstract thinking may explain many things that are typically African.

    You do realize that this indictment could easily be applied to white Europeans, right? Perhaps vastly more so than to Africans.

    This is the most elaborate excuse for being constantly thrashed like little bitches i have read in some time. Also Afghanistan and Vietnam people aren’t ssa, you know.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Okechukwu

    This is the most elaborate excuse for being constantly thrashed like little bitches i have read in some time. Also Afghanistan and Vietnam people aren’t ssa, you know.
     
    Is this supposed to mean anything? Maybe someone can explain what this character is trying to say.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. hyperbola says:
    @JimH
    I can see the usual Northern Hemisphere bias in a lot of this. The fact is there are a lot of places other than Eurasia that have either cold winters and/or winters when you can't grow anything. New Zealand gets snow, southern Africa has 6 months of the year with no rain at all (Mar-Sep), Argentina has both; and yet the locals never even thought of the wheel. S America and Australasia didn't even have iron.

    Added to that is, the tech and political systems all developed either in the dry subtropics (fertile crescent) or the Mediterranean.

    It's the genes, stupid!

    Ancient Mound Excavation in Peru Leads to Groundbreaking Discovery of Advanced Civilization Dating Back 15,000 Years

    http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/ancient-mound-excavation-peru-leads-groundbreaking-discovery-advanced-021407?nopaging=1

    Hundreds of thousands of artifacts dating back as early as 15,000 years have been found at the ancient mound site of Huaca Prieta in Peru. The relics include elaborate hand-woven baskets and tools for deep-sea fishing, which would have necessitated the use of boats that could withstand rough waters, as well as evidence of large-scaled agricultural production and trade. The findings indicate that an early civilization existed in the region which was much more advanced than originally thought.
    “The mounds of artifacts retrieved from Huaca Prieta include food remains, stone tools and other cultural features such as ornate baskets and textiles, which really raise questions about the pace of the development of early humans in that region and their level of knowledge and the technology they used to exploit resources from both the land and the sea,” James M. Adovasio, Ph.D., D.Sc., co-author of the study and archaeologist at Florida Atlantic University told Phys.org. “These strings of events that we have uncovered demonstrate that these people had a remarkable capacity to utilize different types of food resources, which led to a larger society size and everything that goes along with it such as the emergence of bureaucracy and highly organized religion.”…..

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. Okechukwu says:
    @Anonymous
    This is the most elaborate excuse for being constantly thrashed like little bitches i have read in some time. Also Afghanistan and Vietnam people aren't ssa, you know.

    This is the most elaborate excuse for being constantly thrashed like little bitches i have read in some time. Also Afghanistan and Vietnam people aren’t ssa, you know.

    Is this supposed to mean anything? Maybe someone can explain what this character is trying to say.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    "Troll" would be a flattering response to him/her/it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. utu says:
    @Okechukwu
    Note the source: American Renaissance.

    The supremacist tendencies harbored by people like Braun and their dismissive attitudes toward non-whites have been devastating to the Europeans themselves. At Isandlwana, it resulted in 1300 British troops dying on the battlefield and crying for momma. Ultimately, it resulted in whites getting thrown out of Africa. It resulted in the tragedy of Vietnam, and more recently, Iraq and Afghanistan. It seems you folks will never learn that you're not superior to anyone.

    Language, by the way, is an abstract system. That's all human languages. I was exposed to two languages in equal measure growing up: English and Igbo. I found Igbo to be far more difficult to negotiate, far more complicated and complex. There are a million ways to convey in Igbo all the thoughts, ideas and concepts that Braun claims is missing in African languages.

    I also have a somewhat superficial fluency in Efik, my mother's language. If I immersed myself in it over a period of a few months, I could speak it like a native. So with an admittedly small sample size of these two African languages, I haven't found that they lack any of the accouterments of complex or abstract expression. Speaking of my mother, she is fluent in English, Igbo, Efik and Hausa. It seems to me that of these four languages, if English is the one that has imbued its native speakers with enhanced cognition, my mother's own fluency in it would suffer -- and it hasn't. Her competency is well above average, or superior to the average native English speaker. And yet for her it's a fourth language.

    What separates people is culture. As someone who has straddled two cultures I have intimate knowledge of this phenomenon. People's brains literally aren't wired differently but their experiences, histories and influences will shape how they interact with the world. There are aspects of European culture which seemed primitive, unrefined and unsophisticated to Africans. The notion of moving into an area and shooting everything that moves, for example. Europeans extincted animals with which Africans had lived in harmony for thousands of years. They are only now beginning to recognize that they were indeed backwards and that their alleged vaunted capacity for abstract thought could not conceive or foresee what Africans had known for millennia. That to destroy your environment is to destroy yourself. That nature has a fragile balance, and that to remove lions, for example, could collapse the entire system.

    From the article:

    I believe that morality requires abstract thinking—as does planning for the future—and that a relative deficiency in abstract thinking may explain many things that are typically African.

    You do realize that this indictment could easily be applied to white Europeans, right? Perhaps vastly more so than to Africans.

    Language of successful cultures and civilizations are actually often less complex in syntax. Chinese and English are good examples of languages with a very simple syntax. Complexity of language can be a hindrance.

    The notion of moving into an area and shooting everything that moves, for example.

    Obviously you simplify. Indigenous people were responsible for extinction of many species. It is matter of means. Africans just did not have means to kill everything that moves. Who killed mammoth in North America or large birds in New Zealand? Tell me about the thriving fauna in Haiti? During the Great Depression it was very hard to find deer in woods in America. Hunting was a necessity for survival for poor rural Americans. Now there is too many deer.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Yes, not one of his better points. Australia still had megafauna and many specieslong extinct when hunter gatherer people populated Australia....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. Art says:

    Hardship drives intelligence. Living in cold climates requires smart people. It also requires cooperation.

    Cold requires industry. Only smart cooperative people survive in cold climates.

    Doesn’t moderate cold weather predict intelligence?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Okechukwu

    Hardship drives intelligence. Living in cold climates requires smart people. It also requires cooperation.

    Cold requires industry. Only smart cooperative people survive in cold climates.

    Doesn’t moderate cold weather predict intelligence?
     
    The cold weather hypothesis is null and void.
    , @Santoculto
    I think people became cooperative or more future oriented before they arrived to subpolar regions and when they fixated in this regions they stop to EVOLVED to adapt to environmental challenges/changes and colder climate have similar effects as too dry or too hot climate. R selection make people more hyper sexual, sexually oriented because they no have time enough to create their houses and constitute families after. R selected people tend to be mostly maladapted in modern places at least to collect resources enough to give to their families very good standard life while they still are very adapted because r selection seems more generalist just like eucalyptus plants, they have little needs to start a family.

    Too harsh climates or regions instead push for constant evolution tend to limit it and push for constant conservation of winner phenotype/lifestyle. What push for real or literal evolution at least in natural scenarios is when the environment is not just harsh but unpredictable or less constant. Temperate climates and specially continental temperate climates seems a good place to increase both conservation and self actualization or evolution.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. hyperbola says:
    @Okechukwu
    Note the source: American Renaissance.

    The supremacist tendencies harbored by people like Braun and their dismissive attitudes toward non-whites have been devastating to the Europeans themselves. At Isandlwana, it resulted in 1300 British troops dying on the battlefield and crying for momma. Ultimately, it resulted in whites getting thrown out of Africa. It resulted in the tragedy of Vietnam, and more recently, Iraq and Afghanistan. It seems you folks will never learn that you're not superior to anyone.

    Language, by the way, is an abstract system. That's all human languages. I was exposed to two languages in equal measure growing up: English and Igbo. I found Igbo to be far more difficult to negotiate, far more complicated and complex. There are a million ways to convey in Igbo all the thoughts, ideas and concepts that Braun claims is missing in African languages.

    I also have a somewhat superficial fluency in Efik, my mother's language. If I immersed myself in it over a period of a few months, I could speak it like a native. So with an admittedly small sample size of these two African languages, I haven't found that they lack any of the accouterments of complex or abstract expression. Speaking of my mother, she is fluent in English, Igbo, Efik and Hausa. It seems to me that of these four languages, if English is the one that has imbued its native speakers with enhanced cognition, my mother's own fluency in it would suffer -- and it hasn't. Her competency is well above average, or superior to the average native English speaker. And yet for her it's a fourth language.

    What separates people is culture. As someone who has straddled two cultures I have intimate knowledge of this phenomenon. People's brains literally aren't wired differently but their experiences, histories and influences will shape how they interact with the world. There are aspects of European culture which seemed primitive, unrefined and unsophisticated to Africans. The notion of moving into an area and shooting everything that moves, for example. Europeans extincted animals with which Africans had lived in harmony for thousands of years. They are only now beginning to recognize that they were indeed backwards and that their alleged vaunted capacity for abstract thought could not conceive or foresee what Africans had known for millennia. That to destroy your environment is to destroy yourself. That nature has a fragile balance, and that to remove lions, for example, could collapse the entire system.

    From the article:

    I believe that morality requires abstract thinking—as does planning for the future—and that a relative deficiency in abstract thinking may explain many things that are typically African.

    You do realize that this indictment could easily be applied to white Europeans, right? Perhaps vastly more so than to Africans.

    Language, by the way, is an abstract system. That’s all human languages. I was exposed to two languages in equal measure growing up: English and Igbo. I found Igbo to be far more difficult to negotiate, far more complicated and complex. There are a million ways to convey in Igbo all the thoughts, ideas and concepts that Braun claims is missing in African languages.

    Languages are a funny business. I have managed five so far, three of which are “european”, one of which is melanesian and one of which is Indian subcontinent. All of them were learned in situ, i.e. in the country where the language was in its home country. I find that there are things that are most fluidly expressed in one language – the same things can usually be expressed in other languages (sort of), but much more clumsily. These are mostly cultural differences, but they are real. As for English, whose English? I never learned Nigerian English, but I did manage to master four different local varieties of English in non-home countries. Tongue in cheek, I suggest that English is one of the more difficult languages to master (at high level – there are MANY local pidgin versions that are very simple to learn) because it is such a mongrel/bastard/stolen mixture of precision words from other languages with little or no phonetic or spelling regularity.

    As for homogenization – heaven forbid please. Nothing more boring than the world becoming culturally homogenized by hollywood.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. Okechukwu says:

    It is matter of means. Africans just did not have means to kill everything that moves.

    Of course they did. People at every level of technology can extinct any large animal. Are you seriously suggesting that if Africans made a concerted effort to get rid of lions or elephants that they would fail?

    Who killed mammoth in North America or large birds in New Zealand?

    You’re contradicting yourself here. In fact mammoths weren’t the only species to be killed off by prehistoric people.

    During the Great Depression it was very hard to find deer in woods in America. Hunting was a necessity for survival for poor rural Americans.

    Hunting for food, yes. But Europeans didn’t just hunt for food. They hunted for pelts or for target practice or just for fun. Often they hunted simply to clear the area of animals, which they didn’t believe had a right to life. There are efforts underway via genetic engineering and selective breeding to reintroduce many of the animals killed off by Europeans. Few of these animals were ever sources of food. These programs can never resurrect extinct species, but they can attempt to approximate their distinct physical characteristics.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I don't think you are pounting to any valid distinction between Europeans and others wrt hunting. Much sport is plausibly described as a way of playing out old once useful instincts and hunting in its various guises should be seen in that light *unless one is referring to wanton destruction of a species* (cp. ISIS and Taliban cultural destruction). Apart from simulating old hunter practices there was a less primitive desire to decorate rooms with things of beauty like tiger skins of elephant tusks. Note that this was very much a class thing in the case of large animals. Indeed consideration of the way lower class poachers of game were punished in Europe from very early times refutes the idea of a European cultural tendency to deatroy species. (The loss of species in Australia since 1788 has been accidental though, like the continuing loases in the equatorial tropics everywhere, exacerbated by ignorance).

    Specifically your point that Africans could have wiped out lions and elephants is not in the end significant unless, contrary to fact, Europeans are being regarded as people who sought to wipe out rather than merely hunt game (for sport and status/prestige).

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. Okechukwu says:
    @Art
    Hardship drives intelligence. Living in cold climates requires smart people. It also requires cooperation.

    Cold requires industry. Only smart cooperative people survive in cold climates.

    Doesn’t moderate cold weather predict intelligence?

    Hardship drives intelligence. Living in cold climates requires smart people. It also requires cooperation.

    Cold requires industry. Only smart cooperative people survive in cold climates.

    Doesn’t moderate cold weather predict intelligence?

    The cold weather hypothesis is null and void.

    Read More
    • Agree: RaceRealist88
    • Replies: @Art
    The cold weather hypothesis is null and void

    Why did northern Italy produce industry and southern Italy the Mafia?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Lars Porsena
    Res,

    It seems to me the low base rate is a statistical problem in and of itself. Lung cancer is a very rare disease as I understand it that most people simply never get. Even the vast majority of smokers never get lung cancer from it (and some non-smokers also get it anyway). So if statistics show that people who smoke get higher instances of lung cancer, OK, but are those instances evenly distributed amongst the whole population or occurring in high risk subsets?

    I can't claim to be an expert on health statistics but I have heard others make the case that it is true for lung cancer rates. Here is the first site with statistics I found googling and I don't claim it shows anything. http://www.wcrf.org/int/cancer-facts-figures/data-specific-cancers/lung-cancer-statistics

    I have specifically heard Turkey and parts of the middle east used as the example of places where lung cancer rates are relatively overall low despite the culture being heavily chain smoking.

    There are 2 types of smokers: Puffers and deep breathers.

    Puffers seem to go on forever. Deep breathing tobacco smoke?
    Not so much future in that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. @Art
    Hardship drives intelligence. Living in cold climates requires smart people. It also requires cooperation.

    Cold requires industry. Only smart cooperative people survive in cold climates.

    Doesn’t moderate cold weather predict intelligence?

    I think people became cooperative or more future oriented before they arrived to subpolar regions and when they fixated in this regions they stop to EVOLVED to adapt to environmental challenges/changes and colder climate have similar effects as too dry or too hot climate. R selection make people more hyper sexual, sexually oriented because they no have time enough to create their houses and constitute families after. R selected people tend to be mostly maladapted in modern places at least to collect resources enough to give to their families very good standard life while they still are very adapted because r selection seems more generalist just like eucalyptus plants, they have little needs to start a family.

    Too harsh climates or regions instead push for constant evolution tend to limit it and push for constant conservation of winner phenotype/lifestyle. What push for real or literal evolution at least in natural scenarios is when the environment is not just harsh but unpredictable or less constant. Temperate climates and specially continental temperate climates seems a good place to increase both conservation and self actualization or evolution.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. @Okechukwu

    Actually, he does not need to do much convincing. Most of the world including people in Africa for wrong or right reasons already believe that there is a significant cognitive deficit among Sub Saharan Africans.
     
    Actually, no. Sub-Saharan Africans ultimately rejected colonialism because upon interaction with Europeans they didn't find them to be cognitively superior. Often they found the opposite to be the case.

    As far as the rest of the world, I haven't found that they ascribe the myriad problems in Africa to intellectual deficiencies. That's hardly in the top 100 list of potential causes. The largest corporations in the world are making a beeline to Africa to leverage the intellectual capital there.

    People like Dr. Thompson or Davide Piffer or our res here would just like to get a scientific confirmation for this prejudice.
     
    Bingo! Jackpot! You are absolutely correct. But they will fail as their predecessors have failed for hundreds if not thousands of years.

    If however iq phenotype will be correlated to within the twin studies heritability with the genotype and a significant racial differences will established then you and Afrosapiens are fucked.
     
    Yeah, fucked among a tiny fringe of keyboard racists sitting in their trailer parks. Hardly fucked in the real world which enshrines individuality. Furthermore, no one disputes that intelligence has a heritable component. Establishing that fact in twin studies wouldn't uphold supremacist ideologies.

    Then you and Afrosapiens will be the first who will want to have their IQ tattooed on their foreheads to signal that you are above the expected value of your racial groups.
     
    Haha. You should write for Hollywood. That's a fictitious dystopian future that is just begging for a talented scriptwriter to treat. Big hint: It'll never happen in the real world.

    Okechukwu and Afrosapiens Europe is not really a place for you
     
    I don't live in Europe, as you know. I would never live in Europe because I can't stand soccer. Afro seems to be doing just fine there, however, as are millions of other blacks. My own relatives live in England and get on just fine there. Some of them speak such a thickly accented British English that I can barely understand what they're saying. Often when I drift off into peculiarly Southern California speech patterns, they say the same about me. Surely those are examples of mimicry, no?

    Actually, no. Sub-Saharan Africans ultimately rejected colonialism because upon interaction with Europeans they didn’t find them to be cognitively superior. Often they found the opposite to be the case.

    LOL. If by “rejected,” you of mean that European resolve to maintain colonialism declined due to Western moral debate. Portugal was a the major exception. Even then you needed Communist patronage to win.

    I’m Korean. I don’t have any delusion that Korea “rejected” Japanese colonialism. We received it due to the Allies defeating the Japanese Empire. South Korean independence from China has also depended on a U.S. presence.

    You state that the people with global transportation, civil engineering, medicine, and other technology were not “cognitively superior.” OK, in theory that could be true. But if that were true, then at least some African societies would have shown a rapid upwardly-mobile trajectory like the PRC, Taiwan, South Korea, or Japan, all of whom have IQs comparable, of not superior to Europeans. Asian states have flourished despite devastating wars and brutal internal violence directed at intellectuals like the Cultural Revolution.

    What was Subsahran Africans’ highest technological achievement prior to European colonialism? Since independence? What’s the most significant scientific paper published by a Subsahran African with no clear European admixture ever? Chisala has dodged that question when asked because it belies his thesis.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Okechukwu

    LOL. If by “rejected,” you of mean that European resolve to maintain colonialism declined due to Western moral debate. Portugal was a the major exception. Even then you needed Communist patronage to win.
     
    No. By rejected I meant that Africans never considered European supremacy a natural condition. They never bought into that concept. They understood fully that Europeans were superior technologically but not superior in intellectual potential. And there wouldn't have been a western moral debate had Africans accepted their plight with docility.

    Africans' reactions to Europeans weren't attended by the same misguided awe that plagued other indigenous peoples. They didn't appreciate Europeans as some sort of magical, divinely ordained super beings. From the African point of view, Europeans were just weird looking versions of themselves. Additionally, Africans were just as fanatical about land as the Europeans.

    Africa was never easy to conquer, which is why colonialism happened there so late, which is why the colonialists never gained an adequate foothold, which is why they were easier to kick out, unlike in the Americas or Australia. It's not by coincidence that Europeans were only able to make inroads into Africa in the late 19th century after gaining a consequential advantage in weapons tech (Maxim machine guns, etc). Prior to that time Africans did engage and defeat European armies and settlers. Europeans were confined to small coastal enclaves and functioned as vassals to African kings. Europeans engaged in trade with Africans on equal terms because they couldn't take anything by force, including slaves. They tried to raid African villages for slaves and were roundly defeated. Subsequent to that they made treaties and paid for the slaves.


    Portugal was a the major exception. Even then you needed Communist patronage to win
     
    And Portugal was supported to a much larger degree by the Western powers in addition to critical localized support from South Africa and Rhodesia. Your point?

    You state that the people with global transportation, civil engineering, medicine, and other technology were not “cognitively superior.”
     
    That's right. Do you even know how human intelligence works? Were you Koreans, who were technologically primitive a few generations ago, cognitively inferior?

    But if that were true, then at least some African societies would have shown a rapid upwardly-mobile trajectory like the PRC, Taiwan, South Korea, or Japan
     
    First of all, why should they? Why should Africans, who existed in a different environment, who were subjected to differing social and political stresses, who had a multiplicity of ethnicities, languages and cultures on any given landmass 1/4 the size of Taiwan, nevertheless be expected to replicate precisely the same developmental path? But despite these difficulties, despite not being able to milk the cold war for aid the way the Asian countries did, despite wars and social upheaval wrought by and continuing to be instigated by former colonial powers, despite not abutting against major international shipping channels, the African Lion economies are on a faster developmental trajectory in comparison to their Asian Tiger counterparts.

    all of whom have IQs comparable, of not superior to Europeans.
     
    Says who? Who conducted these Asian IQ surveys? Who's reporting the results? Who participated? Where, when and how? I suspect the Asian IQ data is just as fraudulent as the African ones. The IQ industry has a vested interest in promoting alleged high Asian IQ's as a bulwark against charges of racism. Back in the day when Asians were considered dull, lazy and dimwitted their IQ scores were low in order to reflect those characterizations. Don't take my word for it that Asians were once considered stupid. Just watch old movies and TV shows to see how they were depicted.

    Asian states have flourished despite devastating wars and brutal internal violence directed at intellectuals like the Cultural Revolution.
     
    No they haven't. Which Asians? China has 1.4 billion people. With an equivalent number of people we can extrapolate U.S. GDP to around $100 trillion dollars, 5 times its current level. As things stand, hundreds of millions of black Africans are richer and live better than hundreds of millions of Chinese. And the South and Southeast areas of Asia certainly aren't flourishing. By almost every metric a significant percentage of Black Africans are better off then they are.

    What was Subsahran Africans’ highest technological achievement prior to European colonialism? Since independence? What’s the most significant scientific paper published by a Subsahran African with no clear European admixture ever?
     
    That question would be better posed to you with respect to Asia. Do you realize that just a handful of Black Americans have invented and innovated more modern technology than all of Asia combined? That includes China, Japan and Korea. China was very innovative and inventive in the distant past, but in modern times Asians have busied themselves with copying, stealing and co-opting the intellectual production of others.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. Factorize says:

    K-drama, I find your comment about China’s conception of their ethnic identity to include Korea intriguing.

    Could you give me some idea how far China might make claims to an extended ethnic Asian nation?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    I don't believe that's what he meant, more about "Chinese influence."

    That I know of, the Chinese do not include the Koreans in their ethnic identity(though genetically, I believe its actually not very far from the Northeastern Chinese); however, China has traditionally considered all of Asia to be tributaries.

    Some version of this attitude might remain in a modernized fashion.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. @Okechukwu

    This is the most elaborate excuse for being constantly thrashed like little bitches i have read in some time. Also Afghanistan and Vietnam people aren’t ssa, you know.
     
    Is this supposed to mean anything? Maybe someone can explain what this character is trying to say.

    “Troll” would be a flattering response to him/her/it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. @utu
    Language of successful cultures and civilizations are actually often less complex in syntax. Chinese and English are good examples of languages with a very simple syntax. Complexity of language can be a hindrance.

    The notion of moving into an area and shooting everything that moves, for example.

    Obviously you simplify. Indigenous people were responsible for extinction of many species. It is matter of means. Africans just did not have means to kill everything that moves. Who killed mammoth in North America or large birds in New Zealand? Tell me about the thriving fauna in Haiti? During the Great Depression it was very hard to find deer in woods in America. Hunting was a necessity for survival for poor rural Americans. Now there is too many deer.

    Yes, not one of his better points. Australia still had megafauna and many specieslong extinct when hunter gatherer people populated Australia….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. Art says:
    @Okechukwu

    Hardship drives intelligence. Living in cold climates requires smart people. It also requires cooperation.

    Cold requires industry. Only smart cooperative people survive in cold climates.

    Doesn’t moderate cold weather predict intelligence?
     
    The cold weather hypothesis is null and void.

    The cold weather hypothesis is null and void

    Why did northern Italy produce industry and southern Italy the Mafia?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Again this example**

    Do you remember i already debated it with you*
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. @utu
    In the real world no control function can maintain anything exactly constant.

    You have a flair for the irrelevant. Well, yes, there’s no perfect absence of correlation, but that’s utterly beside the point.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    If you had a perfect controller like a thermostat that fixes temperature in the room to exactly T=74F regardless of ambient external temperature T_amb which varies between -40F and 105F what exactly do you want to correlate. Obviously covariance between T and T_amb is zero but the correlation is indeterminate because variance of T is zero. But the covariance zero tells us that there is no causal link between room temperature and ambient temperature. Which is correct because the thermostat is perfect. If some physical quantity remains constant the question of causality does not even arise.

    But we can correlate energy consumption of the heater-AC system versus the ambient temperature and establish convention that the energy is negative when AC is on and positive when heater is on. ± sign indicate the direction where energy is flowing in the system And obviously the consumption of energy is driven by the ambient temperature not other way around. However mathematics will not tell you that because covariance is a symmetric function. The causality you can establish from elsewhere like form the physical mechanism if you can understand but not from mathematics.

    I do not really see relevance of links given by simplyamazed to some people pontificating about the so-called Friedman thermostat. It is all very trivial what they talk about and as I can gather w/o a point. And the so-called Friedman thermostat does not demonstrate that correlation with w/o causality or causality w/o correlation do exits.

    I found this that illustrate the depth of profundity of people keep t=yapping about the Million Friedman thermostat (it all goes to the post of some Nick Rove):

    http://justinhohn.typepad.com/blog/2013/01/milton-friedmans-thermostat-analogy.html
    I came across this excerpt from the excellent Nick Rowe. It is an outline of a famous analogy made by Milton Friedman. It shows what can happen when a "variable" that you analyze by statistical methods isn't varying.
     
    When variable is not varying it is not a variable and there is nothing to be analyzed. Then this blogger proceeds with example I gave above and speculate what some hypothetical economist would conclude form this situation. It is all nonsense and only show of what caliber people get into studying economics.

    In real world controllers are imperfect and they are unable keep the parameters they suppose to control constants when the external conditions keep changing. They work on feedback principle and simple or complex control functions that has delays and when the external forcing is stochastic no prediction can be made to anticipate changes thus the controlled parameter will not be constant. There will be overshoots and undershoots and oscillations. The profile of control parameter changes is a function of external forcing moderated by the control function, so mathematically T=f(T_amb)≠const, so we end up with correlation and an obvious causation.

    Can anybody prove an example of real world case where there is causation between two parameters X and Y that do not correlate? First please read my comment #80 because trivial cases of periodic function do not count.

    P.S. It seems that it was Matthew Yglesias who injected this banal Friedman thermostat into blogosphere that results in the echo chamber.

    P.P.S. Friedman came up with a metaphor of thermostat (2003) for Fed operations. Fed has several variables that they can tweak like interests rate. They may have several objectives like constant unemployment or constant inflation apart from making rich people even richer. They can increase interest rates and they can cause mass unemployment as Volcker did while he was "fighting" the so called inflation but actually it was the high worker's wages he was fighting. So yes they do have some kind of thermostat and in this sense Friedman's metaphor is apt. But to make it work like a thermostat they must have a feedback so they constantly must tweak interest rates so they do not overshoot or undershoot their target of , say unemployment too much. This is rather banal idea but useful for another reason. As it turns out during Volcker time in 1980's when I began to understand what the fuckers where doing I was using a thermostat as metaphor to explain that by adjustment of one dial the fuckers are able to bust the whole Rust Belt. When Greenspan was pontificating in cryptic language and all analysts and talking heads where trying to decipher his occult wisdom and secret messages nobody confronted him and asked: Mr. Greenspan, you just have one dial. You can turn it up or turn it down. That's all what you got. There is nothing to it. Please stop obfuscating this simple and banal truth. Would system collapse if people were to find this this banal truth that the king is and always was naked. Greenspan kind of told us he was naked when told some reporter how he liked to adjust his cold and hot water when taking a bath, presumably naked, with his toes. Perhaps he had his interest rated thermostat dial in his bathroom as well. But people believed because many were getting rich.

    Here is cartoon with the serenity prayer for Greenspan that illustrated the times when Greenspan was the God and the invisible hand of market was his right hand.

    http://www.art.com/products/p15063141112-sa-i6842934/warren-miller-and-please-let-alan-greenspan-accept-the-things-he-cannot-change-give-hi-new-yorker-cartoon.htm
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. @Okechukwu

    It is matter of means. Africans just did not have means to kill everything that moves.
     
    Of course they did. People at every level of technology can extinct any large animal. Are you seriously suggesting that if Africans made a concerted effort to get rid of lions or elephants that they would fail?

    Who killed mammoth in North America or large birds in New Zealand?
     
    You're contradicting yourself here. In fact mammoths weren't the only species to be killed off by prehistoric people.

    During the Great Depression it was very hard to find deer in woods in America. Hunting was a necessity for survival for poor rural Americans.
     
    Hunting for food, yes. But Europeans didn't just hunt for food. They hunted for pelts or for target practice or just for fun. Often they hunted simply to clear the area of animals, which they didn't believe had a right to life. There are efforts underway via genetic engineering and selective breeding to reintroduce many of the animals killed off by Europeans. Few of these animals were ever sources of food. These programs can never resurrect extinct species, but they can attempt to approximate their distinct physical characteristics.

    I don’t think you are pounting to any valid distinction between Europeans and others wrt hunting. Much sport is plausibly described as a way of playing out old once useful instincts and hunting in its various guises should be seen in that light *unless one is referring to wanton destruction of a species* (cp. ISIS and Taliban cultural destruction). Apart from simulating old hunter practices there was a less primitive desire to decorate rooms with things of beauty like tiger skins of elephant tusks. Note that this was very much a class thing in the case of large animals. Indeed consideration of the way lower class poachers of game were punished in Europe from very early times refutes the idea of a European cultural tendency to deatroy species. (The loss of species in Australia since 1788 has been accidental though, like the continuing loases in the equatorial tropics everywhere, exacerbated by ignorance).

    Specifically your point that Africans could have wiped out lions and elephants is not in the end significant unless, contrary to fact, Europeans are being regarded as people who sought to wipe out rather than merely hunt game (for sport and status/prestige).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. Okechukwu says:
    @K-Drama Kumiho

    Actually, no. Sub-Saharan Africans ultimately rejected colonialism because upon interaction with Europeans they didn’t find them to be cognitively superior. Often they found the opposite to be the case.
     
    LOL. If by "rejected," you of mean that European resolve to maintain colonialism declined due to Western moral debate. Portugal was a the major exception. Even then you needed Communist patronage to win.

    I'm Korean. I don't have any delusion that Korea "rejected" Japanese colonialism. We received it due to the Allies defeating the Japanese Empire. South Korean independence from China has also depended on a U.S. presence.

    You state that the people with global transportation, civil engineering, medicine, and other technology were not "cognitively superior." OK, in theory that could be true. But if that were true, then at least some African societies would have shown a rapid upwardly-mobile trajectory like the PRC, Taiwan, South Korea, or Japan, all of whom have IQs comparable, of not superior to Europeans. Asian states have flourished despite devastating wars and brutal internal violence directed at intellectuals like the Cultural Revolution.

    What was Subsahran Africans' highest technological achievement prior to European colonialism? Since independence? What's the most significant scientific paper published by a Subsahran African with no clear European admixture ever? Chisala has dodged that question when asked because it belies his thesis.

    LOL. If by “rejected,” you of mean that European resolve to maintain colonialism declined due to Western moral debate. Portugal was a the major exception. Even then you needed Communist patronage to win.

    No. By rejected I meant that Africans never considered European supremacy a natural condition. They never bought into that concept. They understood fully that Europeans were superior technologically but not superior in intellectual potential. And there wouldn’t have been a western moral debate had Africans accepted their plight with docility.

    Africans’ reactions to Europeans weren’t attended by the same misguided awe that plagued other indigenous peoples. They didn’t appreciate Europeans as some sort of magical, divinely ordained super beings. From the African point of view, Europeans were just weird looking versions of themselves. Additionally, Africans were just as fanatical about land as the Europeans.

    Africa was never easy to conquer, which is why colonialism happened there so late, which is why the colonialists never gained an adequate foothold, which is why they were easier to kick out, unlike in the Americas or Australia. It’s not by coincidence that Europeans were only able to make inroads into Africa in the late 19th century after gaining a consequential advantage in weapons tech (Maxim machine guns, etc). Prior to that time Africans did engage and defeat European armies and settlers. Europeans were confined to small coastal enclaves and functioned as vassals to African kings. Europeans engaged in trade with Africans on equal terms because they couldn’t take anything by force, including slaves. They tried to raid African villages for slaves and were roundly defeated. Subsequent to that they made treaties and paid for the slaves.

    Portugal was a the major exception. Even then you needed Communist patronage to win

    And Portugal was supported to a much larger degree by the Western powers in addition to critical localized support from South Africa and Rhodesia. Your point?

    You state that the people with global transportation, civil engineering, medicine, and other technology were not “cognitively superior.”

    That’s right. Do you even know how human intelligence works? Were you Koreans, who were technologically primitive a few generations ago, cognitively inferior?

    But if that were true, then at least some African societies would have shown a rapid upwardly-mobile trajectory like the PRC, Taiwan, South Korea, or Japan

    First of all, why should they? Why should Africans, who existed in a different environment, who were subjected to differing social and political stresses, who had a multiplicity of ethnicities, languages and cultures on any given landmass 1/4 the size of Taiwan, nevertheless be expected to replicate precisely the same developmental path? But despite these difficulties, despite not being able to milk the cold war for aid the way the Asian countries did, despite wars and social upheaval wrought by and continuing to be instigated by former colonial powers, despite not abutting against major international shipping channels, the African Lion economies are on a faster developmental trajectory in comparison to their Asian Tiger counterparts.

    all of whom have IQs comparable, of not superior to Europeans.

    Says who? Who conducted these Asian IQ surveys? Who’s reporting the results? Who participated? Where, when and how? I suspect the Asian IQ data is just as fraudulent as the African ones. The IQ industry has a vested interest in promoting alleged high Asian IQ’s as a bulwark against charges of racism. Back in the day when Asians were considered dull, lazy and dimwitted their IQ scores were low in order to reflect those characterizations. Don’t take my word for it that Asians were once considered stupid. Just watch old movies and TV shows to see how they were depicted.

    Asian states have flourished despite devastating wars and brutal internal violence directed at intellectuals like the Cultural Revolution.

    No they haven’t. Which Asians? China has 1.4 billion people. With an equivalent number of people we can extrapolate U.S. GDP to around $100 trillion dollars, 5 times its current level. As things stand, hundreds of millions of black Africans are richer and live better than hundreds of millions of Chinese. And the South and Southeast areas of Asia certainly aren’t flourishing. By almost every metric a significant percentage of Black Africans are better off then they are.

    What was Subsahran Africans’ highest technological achievement prior to European colonialism? Since independence? What’s the most significant scientific paper published by a Subsahran African with no clear European admixture ever?

    That question would be better posed to you with respect to Asia. Do you realize that just a handful of Black Americans have invented and innovated more modern technology than all of Asia combined? That includes China, Japan and Korea. China was very innovative and inventive in the distant past, but in modern times Asians have busied themselves with copying, stealing and co-opting the intellectual production of others.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh

    No they haven’t. Which Asians? China has 1.4 billion people. With an equivalent number of people we can extrapolate U.S. GDP to around $100 trillion dollars, 5 times its current level. As things stand, hundreds of millions of black Africans are richer and live better than hundreds of millions of Chinese
     
    This is a ridiculous way to measure it. A more accurate consideration is that despite covering over 1 billion people and with a huge variation in income, China has a higher GDP per capita than even South Africa and almost any measure ranging in metrics as far as military power to clean water distribution or power grid access is doing better(even in the poorest areas). And of course, has a obesity problem rather than malnutrition problem.

    If you think that a pan-African nation can do similar, well, good luck with the unification. Also, the power grid.

    However, you clearly have an agenda so its not really worth discussing further.

    , @Wizard of Oz
    I pause for applause. The nitpicking can wait!

    But given that you probably accept that cogbitivw ability (whether phenotype omeasured as is including envirionmental influences or genotype) is distributed worldwide on a roughly Gaussian normal curve can you not deal with the probability that some extended family groups have very different averages ans sds

    , @K-Drama Kumiho

    Africans’ reactions to Europeans weren’t attended by the same misguided awe that plagued other indigenous peoples.
     
    This is unintentionally damning. You're basically admitting to SSAs being incurious as a whole. Confucian Asians were pretty damn impressed by steam engines, organic chemistry, advanced firearms...because that's the normal reaction of a person who values civilizational and technological progress.

    Were you Koreans, who were technologically primitive a few generations ago, cognitively inferior?
     
    No, but we were clearly culturally maladapted. As a woman, I hardly am wistful for pre-modern Korean culture. Koreans showed that as soon as we stopped holding ourselves back and joined the modern world, we caught up with and surpassed many Europeans within two generations. We now develop leading-edge consumer technology products; you might even be using one right now. And look what a mess we were in in 1953. We are betetr than Japan even in per capita production of per-reviewed scientific publications:
    https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/20k5dk/top_40_countries_by_the_number_of_scientific/

    That's not as flashy as specific inventions, but its part of how science and technology advance.

    Of course when I point out Africa's trajectory over the same period you become defensive:

    First of all, why should they?...nevertheless be expected to replicate precisely the same developmental path?
     
    Nice strawman in the "precisely the same" misrepresentation of my challenge.

    In any case, if SSAs are of comparable or equivalent IQ to NE Asians and Europeans, then surely you must have accomplished something noteworthy in the thousands upon thousands of years before the White Devil showed up. Even South Asians, with lower recorded IQs, have some impressive achievements, starting with base-10 mathematics.

    When I asked you about SSA accomplishments, you again get defensive:

    That question would be better posed to you with respect to Asia. Do you realize that just a handful of Black Americans have invented and innovated more modern technology than all of Asia combined? That includes China, Japan and Korea.
     
    So as expected, you literally can't name anything specific for SSA. Your counter-challenge is farcical. Here's a list of Japanese inventions/discoveries (it's a long one):
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Japanese_inventions_and_discoveries

    Prior to European contact, Koreans invented our own alphabet suited for Korean and the first metal moveable-type printing press. We had sophisticated carpentry, luxury-quality cloth-making, fine ceramics, etc. Not much, but we were hardly savages.

    As for "all of Asia," the list of Nobel Prize winners in physics, chemistry, and medicine speaks for itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Asian_Nobel_laureates. The only "African" winners in those fields are European. Ouch.

    Black Americans are an admixture with Europeans, but even then they can't begin to match the accomplishments listed above. Feel free to try.

    Like Chisala, you use sophistry and Kangz-style bravado to ignore the elephant in the room.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. @Okechukwu
    Note the source: American Renaissance.

    The supremacist tendencies harbored by people like Braun and their dismissive attitudes toward non-whites have been devastating to the Europeans themselves. At Isandlwana, it resulted in 1300 British troops dying on the battlefield and crying for momma. Ultimately, it resulted in whites getting thrown out of Africa. It resulted in the tragedy of Vietnam, and more recently, Iraq and Afghanistan. It seems you folks will never learn that you're not superior to anyone.

    Language, by the way, is an abstract system. That's all human languages. I was exposed to two languages in equal measure growing up: English and Igbo. I found Igbo to be far more difficult to negotiate, far more complicated and complex. There are a million ways to convey in Igbo all the thoughts, ideas and concepts that Braun claims is missing in African languages.

    I also have a somewhat superficial fluency in Efik, my mother's language. If I immersed myself in it over a period of a few months, I could speak it like a native. So with an admittedly small sample size of these two African languages, I haven't found that they lack any of the accouterments of complex or abstract expression. Speaking of my mother, she is fluent in English, Igbo, Efik and Hausa. It seems to me that of these four languages, if English is the one that has imbued its native speakers with enhanced cognition, my mother's own fluency in it would suffer -- and it hasn't. Her competency is well above average, or superior to the average native English speaker. And yet for her it's a fourth language.

    What separates people is culture. As someone who has straddled two cultures I have intimate knowledge of this phenomenon. People's brains literally aren't wired differently but their experiences, histories and influences will shape how they interact with the world. There are aspects of European culture which seemed primitive, unrefined and unsophisticated to Africans. The notion of moving into an area and shooting everything that moves, for example. Europeans extincted animals with which Africans had lived in harmony for thousands of years. They are only now beginning to recognize that they were indeed backwards and that their alleged vaunted capacity for abstract thought could not conceive or foresee what Africans had known for millennia. That to destroy your environment is to destroy yourself. That nature has a fragile balance, and that to remove lions, for example, could collapse the entire system.

    From the article:

    I believe that morality requires abstract thinking—as does planning for the future—and that a relative deficiency in abstract thinking may explain many things that are typically African.

    You do realize that this indictment could easily be applied to white Europeans, right? Perhaps vastly more so than to Africans.

    Thank you for that interesting reply.

    I am surprised that you do not point to the problem of much discussion by the likes of Lynn, Rushton and probably Braun that their data samples are far too small and limited to represent the enormous genetic variety within Africa that contrasts with the narrow out of Africa lineages of the rest of humanity. By accident and by mostly natural selection there could be mini Indias within African regions and maybe even within people of one language group that had castes. Aren’t Igbo known for being smart (“Jews of Africa” I see is treated as more than metaphorical by some)? And also as having castes?

    Perhaps Braun has detected a real connection between the kind of abstract thinking that supports morality in any but the simplest circumstances and IQ. That might have as much to do with class, with the Flynn Effect and with moves from rural to sophisticated urban lives as with genes for cognition.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Okechukwu

    I am surprised that you do not point to the problem of much discussion by the likes of Lynn, Rushton and probably Braun that their data samples are far too small and limited to represent the enormous genetic variety within Africa that contrasts with the narrow out of Africa lineages of the rest of humanity.
     
    Well it’s already a foregone conclusion Lynn, Rushton, Braun et al. are frauds.

    You hit on an interesting point. If human populations are segmentable into intellectually superior and inferior then it’s entirely possible that we will find the smartest people in the world in Africa. Taking HBD theory to its proper conclusion, if we delineate human genes in the minutiae it’s not inconceivable that populations with richer gene pools are endowed with genes and frequencies for intelligence that are absent in other relatively bottlenecked and inbred populations.


    Aren’t Igbo known for being smart (“Jews of Africa” I see is treated as more than metaphorical by some)? And also as having castes?
     
    Yes, the smart Igbo is a stereotype. Of course, Igbos aren’t always smart but they have suffered collective persecution on account of being perceived as smart and “Jew-like.” The Biafran civil war often was framed by northern Muslims in terms of a battle against the Jews. I’m agnostic about the Jewish connection. Some of our cultural practices are eerily but probably coincidentally similar.

    Igbos don’t practice a caste system. Their overriding sensibility is devotion to family — broad, extended families that eventually encompasses all of Igboland and the diaspora. There is no Igbo equivalent of the word “cousin.” Even distant cousins are called brothers and sisters. To specifically identify someone as a cousin requires explication.

    Igbos do venerate education, achievement and success. That’s the closest thing to a caste system we have, with high achievers on top. The competition to get there and to outdo each other, even among siblings, can be vicious. It does promote successful outcomes but it also engenders envy and ill will.


    Perhaps Braun has detected a real connection between the kind of abstract thinking that supports morality in any but the simplest circumstances and IQ.
     
    Morality is a relative and subjective concept. There were slaveholders who considered themselves paragons and virtue and morality. Making pernicious judgments about an entire continent based on superficial interactions and deeply-held biases is in fact immoral. Therefore, ironically, Braun himself is immoral.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. @Factorize
    K-drama, I find your comment about China's conception of their ethnic identity to include Korea intriguing.

    Could you give me some idea how far China might make claims to an extended ethnic Asian nation?

    I don’t believe that’s what he meant, more about “Chinese influence.”

    That I know of, the Chinese do not include the Koreans in their ethnic identity(though genetically, I believe its actually not very far from the Northeastern Chinese); however, China has traditionally considered all of Asia to be tributaries.

    Some version of this attitude might remain in a modernized fashion.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. @Okechukwu

    LOL. If by “rejected,” you of mean that European resolve to maintain colonialism declined due to Western moral debate. Portugal was a the major exception. Even then you needed Communist patronage to win.
     
    No. By rejected I meant that Africans never considered European supremacy a natural condition. They never bought into that concept. They understood fully that Europeans were superior technologically but not superior in intellectual potential. And there wouldn't have been a western moral debate had Africans accepted their plight with docility.

    Africans' reactions to Europeans weren't attended by the same misguided awe that plagued other indigenous peoples. They didn't appreciate Europeans as some sort of magical, divinely ordained super beings. From the African point of view, Europeans were just weird looking versions of themselves. Additionally, Africans were just as fanatical about land as the Europeans.

    Africa was never easy to conquer, which is why colonialism happened there so late, which is why the colonialists never gained an adequate foothold, which is why they were easier to kick out, unlike in the Americas or Australia. It's not by coincidence that Europeans were only able to make inroads into Africa in the late 19th century after gaining a consequential advantage in weapons tech (Maxim machine guns, etc). Prior to that time Africans did engage and defeat European armies and settlers. Europeans were confined to small coastal enclaves and functioned as vassals to African kings. Europeans engaged in trade with Africans on equal terms because they couldn't take anything by force, including slaves. They tried to raid African villages for slaves and were roundly defeated. Subsequent to that they made treaties and paid for the slaves.


    Portugal was a the major exception. Even then you needed Communist patronage to win
     
    And Portugal was supported to a much larger degree by the Western powers in addition to critical localized support from South Africa and Rhodesia. Your point?

    You state that the people with global transportation, civil engineering, medicine, and other technology were not “cognitively superior.”
     
    That's right. Do you even know how human intelligence works? Were you Koreans, who were technologically primitive a few generations ago, cognitively inferior?

    But if that were true, then at least some African societies would have shown a rapid upwardly-mobile trajectory like the PRC, Taiwan, South Korea, or Japan
     
    First of all, why should they? Why should Africans, who existed in a different environment, who were subjected to differing social and political stresses, who had a multiplicity of ethnicities, languages and cultures on any given landmass 1/4 the size of Taiwan, nevertheless be expected to replicate precisely the same developmental path? But despite these difficulties, despite not being able to milk the cold war for aid the way the Asian countries did, despite wars and social upheaval wrought by and continuing to be instigated by former colonial powers, despite not abutting against major international shipping channels, the African Lion economies are on a faster developmental trajectory in comparison to their Asian Tiger counterparts.

    all of whom have IQs comparable, of not superior to Europeans.
     
    Says who? Who conducted these Asian IQ surveys? Who's reporting the results? Who participated? Where, when and how? I suspect the Asian IQ data is just as fraudulent as the African ones. The IQ industry has a vested interest in promoting alleged high Asian IQ's as a bulwark against charges of racism. Back in the day when Asians were considered dull, lazy and dimwitted their IQ scores were low in order to reflect those characterizations. Don't take my word for it that Asians were once considered stupid. Just watch old movies and TV shows to see how they were depicted.

    Asian states have flourished despite devastating wars and brutal internal violence directed at intellectuals like the Cultural Revolution.
     
    No they haven't. Which Asians? China has 1.4 billion people. With an equivalent number of people we can extrapolate U.S. GDP to around $100 trillion dollars, 5 times its current level. As things stand, hundreds of millions of black Africans are richer and live better than hundreds of millions of Chinese. And the South and Southeast areas of Asia certainly aren't flourishing. By almost every metric a significant percentage of Black Africans are better off then they are.

    What was Subsahran Africans’ highest technological achievement prior to European colonialism? Since independence? What’s the most significant scientific paper published by a Subsahran African with no clear European admixture ever?
     
    That question would be better posed to you with respect to Asia. Do you realize that just a handful of Black Americans have invented and innovated more modern technology than all of Asia combined? That includes China, Japan and Korea. China was very innovative and inventive in the distant past, but in modern times Asians have busied themselves with copying, stealing and co-opting the intellectual production of others.

    No they haven’t. Which Asians? China has 1.4 billion people. With an equivalent number of people we can extrapolate U.S. GDP to around $100 trillion dollars, 5 times its current level. As things stand, hundreds of millions of black Africans are richer and live better than hundreds of millions of Chinese

    This is a ridiculous way to measure it. A more accurate consideration is that despite covering over 1 billion people and with a huge variation in income, China has a higher GDP per capita than even South Africa and almost any measure ranging in metrics as far as military power to clean water distribution or power grid access is doing better(even in the poorest areas). And of course, has a obesity problem rather than malnutrition problem.

    If you think that a pan-African nation can do similar, well, good luck with the unification. Also, the power grid.

    However, you clearly have an agenda so its not really worth discussing further.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. @Art
    The cold weather hypothesis is null and void

    Why did northern Italy produce industry and southern Italy the Mafia?

    Again this example**

    Do you remember i already debated it with you*

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. Factorize says:

    Afrosapiens, the series of figures for world population density that you posted at the top of this thread has greatly helped me locate the centers of human civilization over the last many thousands of years. As you move from one map to the next you can witness the developmental journey of humanity.

    The three founding pillars of human civilization (Europe, India, Asia) are conspicuous on these maps for 5,000 years. What I find especially of note is that comparatively recently (during the last century or two), there has emerged three other pillars of humanity (America, Brazil and Sub-Saharan Africa). Given the population densities shown in the current maps, Sub-Saharan Africa has now attained the demographic prerequisites for a self-perpetuating cycle of development.

    The same process of densification —> to cognitive complexity –> to selective force for higher intelligence, along with the creation of IQ outliers simply through increased population size has driven the founding civilizations forward for many thousands of years. The maps suggest to me that we are now entering an era in which the background forces that promote beneficial cognitive outcomes will become ubiquitous. However, the approaching wave of genetic modification will have a much greater impact on a much shorter timescale.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  118. @Okechukwu

    LOL. If by “rejected,” you of mean that European resolve to maintain colonialism declined due to Western moral debate. Portugal was a the major exception. Even then you needed Communist patronage to win.
     
    No. By rejected I meant that Africans never considered European supremacy a natural condition. They never bought into that concept. They understood fully that Europeans were superior technologically but not superior in intellectual potential. And there wouldn't have been a western moral debate had Africans accepted their plight with docility.

    Africans' reactions to Europeans weren't attended by the same misguided awe that plagued other indigenous peoples. They didn't appreciate Europeans as some sort of magical, divinely ordained super beings. From the African point of view, Europeans were just weird looking versions of themselves. Additionally, Africans were just as fanatical about land as the Europeans.

    Africa was never easy to conquer, which is why colonialism happened there so late, which is why the colonialists never gained an adequate foothold, which is why they were easier to kick out, unlike in the Americas or Australia. It's not by coincidence that Europeans were only able to make inroads into Africa in the late 19th century after gaining a consequential advantage in weapons tech (Maxim machine guns, etc). Prior to that time Africans did engage and defeat European armies and settlers. Europeans were confined to small coastal enclaves and functioned as vassals to African kings. Europeans engaged in trade with Africans on equal terms because they couldn't take anything by force, including slaves. They tried to raid African villages for slaves and were roundly defeated. Subsequent to that they made treaties and paid for the slaves.


    Portugal was a the major exception. Even then you needed Communist patronage to win
     
    And Portugal was supported to a much larger degree by the Western powers in addition to critical localized support from South Africa and Rhodesia. Your point?

    You state that the people with global transportation, civil engineering, medicine, and other technology were not “cognitively superior.”
     
    That's right. Do you even know how human intelligence works? Were you Koreans, who were technologically primitive a few generations ago, cognitively inferior?

    But if that were true, then at least some African societies would have shown a rapid upwardly-mobile trajectory like the PRC, Taiwan, South Korea, or Japan
     
    First of all, why should they? Why should Africans, who existed in a different environment, who were subjected to differing social and political stresses, who had a multiplicity of ethnicities, languages and cultures on any given landmass 1/4 the size of Taiwan, nevertheless be expected to replicate precisely the same developmental path? But despite these difficulties, despite not being able to milk the cold war for aid the way the Asian countries did, despite wars and social upheaval wrought by and continuing to be instigated by former colonial powers, despite not abutting against major international shipping channels, the African Lion economies are on a faster developmental trajectory in comparison to their Asian Tiger counterparts.

    all of whom have IQs comparable, of not superior to Europeans.
     
    Says who? Who conducted these Asian IQ surveys? Who's reporting the results? Who participated? Where, when and how? I suspect the Asian IQ data is just as fraudulent as the African ones. The IQ industry has a vested interest in promoting alleged high Asian IQ's as a bulwark against charges of racism. Back in the day when Asians were considered dull, lazy and dimwitted their IQ scores were low in order to reflect those characterizations. Don't take my word for it that Asians were once considered stupid. Just watch old movies and TV shows to see how they were depicted.

    Asian states have flourished despite devastating wars and brutal internal violence directed at intellectuals like the Cultural Revolution.
     
    No they haven't. Which Asians? China has 1.4 billion people. With an equivalent number of people we can extrapolate U.S. GDP to around $100 trillion dollars, 5 times its current level. As things stand, hundreds of millions of black Africans are richer and live better than hundreds of millions of Chinese. And the South and Southeast areas of Asia certainly aren't flourishing. By almost every metric a significant percentage of Black Africans are better off then they are.

    What was Subsahran Africans’ highest technological achievement prior to European colonialism? Since independence? What’s the most significant scientific paper published by a Subsahran African with no clear European admixture ever?
     
    That question would be better posed to you with respect to Asia. Do you realize that just a handful of Black Americans have invented and innovated more modern technology than all of Asia combined? That includes China, Japan and Korea. China was very innovative and inventive in the distant past, but in modern times Asians have busied themselves with copying, stealing and co-opting the intellectual production of others.

    I pause for applause. The nitpicking can wait!

    But given that you probably accept that cogbitivw ability (whether phenotype omeasured as is including envirionmental influences or genotype) is distributed worldwide on a roughly Gaussian normal curve can you not deal with the probability that some extended family groups have very different averages ans sds

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. I meant my # 118 as at present numbered to be a reply to this ….. and I meant to add at the end after “sds” the words “within [black or just sub-Saharan] Africa”. I think it’s time for some Igbo supremacism. :-)
    I assume that you don’t have a problem accepting that some intermarrying extended families have evolved heritable differences in cognitive ability as measured by the better IQ tests. It’s not difficult to see how the inbred literate Ashkenazi tribe of anything-but-peasants evolved the alleles for doing the kind of things IQ tests measure. Likewise Greg Clark’s “A Farewell to Alms; a Brief Economic History of the World” doesn’t emphasise the genetic aspects of NW European, particularly British, outbreeding of the lower classes by the post 1400 commercially and professionally successful (until it went into reverse 100 – 140 years ago) but leaves no other inference possible. Right?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  120. @Okechukwu

    LOL. If by “rejected,” you of mean that European resolve to maintain colonialism declined due to Western moral debate. Portugal was a the major exception. Even then you needed Communist patronage to win.
     
    No. By rejected I meant that Africans never considered European supremacy a natural condition. They never bought into that concept. They understood fully that Europeans were superior technologically but not superior in intellectual potential. And there wouldn't have been a western moral debate had Africans accepted their plight with docility.

    Africans' reactions to Europeans weren't attended by the same misguided awe that plagued other indigenous peoples. They didn't appreciate Europeans as some sort of magical, divinely ordained super beings. From the African point of view, Europeans were just weird looking versions of themselves. Additionally, Africans were just as fanatical about land as the Europeans.

    Africa was never easy to conquer, which is why colonialism happened there so late, which is why the colonialists never gained an adequate foothold, which is why they were easier to kick out, unlike in the Americas or Australia. It's not by coincidence that Europeans were only able to make inroads into Africa in the late 19th century after gaining a consequential advantage in weapons tech (Maxim machine guns, etc). Prior to that time Africans did engage and defeat European armies and settlers. Europeans were confined to small coastal enclaves and functioned as vassals to African kings. Europeans engaged in trade with Africans on equal terms because they couldn't take anything by force, including slaves. They tried to raid African villages for slaves and were roundly defeated. Subsequent to that they made treaties and paid for the slaves.


    Portugal was a the major exception. Even then you needed Communist patronage to win
     
    And Portugal was supported to a much larger degree by the Western powers in addition to critical localized support from South Africa and Rhodesia. Your point?

    You state that the people with global transportation, civil engineering, medicine, and other technology were not “cognitively superior.”
     
    That's right. Do you even know how human intelligence works? Were you Koreans, who were technologically primitive a few generations ago, cognitively inferior?

    But if that were true, then at least some African societies would have shown a rapid upwardly-mobile trajectory like the PRC, Taiwan, South Korea, or Japan
     
    First of all, why should they? Why should Africans, who existed in a different environment, who were subjected to differing social and political stresses, who had a multiplicity of ethnicities, languages and cultures on any given landmass 1/4 the size of Taiwan, nevertheless be expected to replicate precisely the same developmental path? But despite these difficulties, despite not being able to milk the cold war for aid the way the Asian countries did, despite wars and social upheaval wrought by and continuing to be instigated by former colonial powers, despite not abutting against major international shipping channels, the African Lion economies are on a faster developmental trajectory in comparison to their Asian Tiger counterparts.

    all of whom have IQs comparable, of not superior to Europeans.
     
    Says who? Who conducted these Asian IQ surveys? Who's reporting the results? Who participated? Where, when and how? I suspect the Asian IQ data is just as fraudulent as the African ones. The IQ industry has a vested interest in promoting alleged high Asian IQ's as a bulwark against charges of racism. Back in the day when Asians were considered dull, lazy and dimwitted their IQ scores were low in order to reflect those characterizations. Don't take my word for it that Asians were once considered stupid. Just watch old movies and TV shows to see how they were depicted.

    Asian states have flourished despite devastating wars and brutal internal violence directed at intellectuals like the Cultural Revolution.
     
    No they haven't. Which Asians? China has 1.4 billion people. With an equivalent number of people we can extrapolate U.S. GDP to around $100 trillion dollars, 5 times its current level. As things stand, hundreds of millions of black Africans are richer and live better than hundreds of millions of Chinese. And the South and Southeast areas of Asia certainly aren't flourishing. By almost every metric a significant percentage of Black Africans are better off then they are.

    What was Subsahran Africans’ highest technological achievement prior to European colonialism? Since independence? What’s the most significant scientific paper published by a Subsahran African with no clear European admixture ever?
     
    That question would be better posed to you with respect to Asia. Do you realize that just a handful of Black Americans have invented and innovated more modern technology than all of Asia combined? That includes China, Japan and Korea. China was very innovative and inventive in the distant past, but in modern times Asians have busied themselves with copying, stealing and co-opting the intellectual production of others.

    Africans’ reactions to Europeans weren’t attended by the same misguided awe that plagued other indigenous peoples.

    This is unintentionally damning. You’re basically admitting to SSAs being incurious as a whole. Confucian Asians were pretty damn impressed by steam engines, organic chemistry, advanced firearms…because that’s the normal reaction of a person who values civilizational and technological progress.

    Were you Koreans, who were technologically primitive a few generations ago, cognitively inferior?

    No, but we were clearly culturally maladapted. As a woman, I hardly am wistful for pre-modern Korean culture. Koreans showed that as soon as we stopped holding ourselves back and joined the modern world, we caught up with and surpassed many Europeans within two generations. We now develop leading-edge consumer technology products; you might even be using one right now. And look what a mess we were in in 1953. We are betetr than Japan even in per capita production of per-reviewed scientific publications:

    https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/20k5dk/top_40_countries_by_the_number_of_scientific/

    That’s not as flashy as specific inventions, but its part of how science and technology advance.

    Of course when I point out Africa’s trajectory over the same period you become defensive:

    First of all, why should they?…nevertheless be expected to replicate precisely the same developmental path?

    Nice strawman in the “precisely the same” misrepresentation of my challenge.

    In any case, if SSAs are of comparable or equivalent IQ to NE Asians and Europeans, then surely you must have accomplished something noteworthy in the thousands upon thousands of years before the White Devil showed up. Even South Asians, with lower recorded IQs, have some impressive achievements, starting with base-10 mathematics.

    When I asked you about SSA accomplishments, you again get defensive:

    That question would be better posed to you with respect to Asia. Do you realize that just a handful of Black Americans have invented and innovated more modern technology than all of Asia combined? That includes China, Japan and Korea.

    So as expected, you literally can’t name anything specific for SSA. Your counter-challenge is farcical. Here’s a list of Japanese inventions/discoveries (it’s a long one):

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Japanese_inventions_and_discoveries

    Prior to European contact, Koreans invented our own alphabet suited for Korean and the first metal moveable-type printing press. We had sophisticated carpentry, luxury-quality cloth-making, fine ceramics, etc. Not much, but we were hardly savages.

    As for “all of Asia,” the list of Nobel Prize winners in physics, chemistry, and medicine speaks for itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Asian_Nobel_laureates. The only “African” winners in those fields are European. Ouch.

    Black Americans are an admixture with Europeans, but even then they can’t begin to match the accomplishments listed above. Feel free to try.

    Like Chisala, you use sophistry and Kangz-style bravado to ignore the elephant in the room.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Here at unz.com we have our own home grown philosopher Priss Factor who sometimes have interesting insights which often are buried in mishmash of fleeting ideas when his thought producing volcano erupts too much. In this case

    http://www.unz.com/imercer/taking-a-knee-is-akin-to-taking-a-pee/#comment-2025837

    he puts a finger on something what appeals to me because I am a strong skeptic of IQ cult as among others I have seen too many shenanigans the IQist can engage in. Here is what Priss wrote:

    Some say blacks fail at dealing with complexity because of lower IQ, but there are blacks with higher IQ, but their attitudes are much the same. Why? Their emotions outrun their intelligence. So, even if they are just as smart as whites or even smarter, their emotions are still stuck in ‘chuck a spear’ or ‘run like mofo’ mentality. This is why even smart blacks like Cornel West and Michael Dyson sound just like rappers.
     
    The concept that the emotions can totally sabotage your intelligence is obvious to anybody who got angry or scared and lost it. It is possible that some cultures for whatever reasons find themselves in the negative well of intellectual potential when the culturally unchecked and unmitigated emotions keep rationality that is the core of intelligence in arrested development? Is it possible that there is a genetic factor in it? Personally I prefer the former than the latter but I would not exclude the genetic factor possibility. If culture and environment does not keep emotions in check and does not reduce number of situation were people get anger or scared it is very hard to imagine that sober thinking and pondering with reflection, contemplation and introspection will develop. Fear and anger will wipe any developments every time they take hold of an individual or the whole community.

    So whatever causes this excessive emotionality whether it is a culture or some genes activating physiological process and hormone release it will preclude ability to perform on tasks which require patience and concentration like for example taking cognitive tests as well as harmonious cooperation that can't succeed when outburst of emotions interrupt.

    I used to observe African Americans playing chess. Some of them were pretty good at it. However they were getting way too emotional and they were employing a tactic of trash talking to deconcentrate and intimidate opponents with theatrical and threatening body motions and gestures. So the the game had a strong physical component. By losing energy on this and by deconcentration obviously they could not have been as good as players who put all the energy just into the analyzing game. It is however possible that Karpov could lose in such high pressure environment of verbal abuse. His game would suffer. Clearly Blacks if they continue on this path which I consider is chiefly culturally determined, they will never maximize their intellectual potentials. So they will be on the suboptimal path. I am sure the IQist will not like this idea because they want to see Blacks locked up in the prison of their genes from which there is no escape. Ever. I on the other hand would like to see Blacks having a chance of escaping the prison of their culture which is pathological (for many reasons) and totally unsuitable for modern or modernizing society. While I can imagine that in Africa process of cultural evolution are taking place as a part of natural process however in the US the lowest stratum of Black society does not show any signs of improvement.

    Our interlocutor here Afrosapience who is Haitian by birth and naturalized French instead of telling us what Europe, Poland or Belarus should do to accommodate Blacks he could enlighten as whether culture changes in desirable direction happens in Haiti. Then our other interlocutor Okechukwu who, if I am not mistaken is Igbo but lives in the US, instead of making gleeful prophesies of the end of White race in Europe could tell us how this super rich language he claims Igo and other Nigerian posses helps them to make important and complex decisions like about how to divide budget in community and how they do not let emotion soutrun the intelligence in such situations.
    , @Okechukwu

    This is unintentionally damning. You’re basically admitting to SSAs being incurious as a whole. Confucian Asians were pretty damn impressed by steam engines, organic chemistry, advanced firearms…because that’s the normal reaction of a person who values civilizational and technological progress.
     
    Africans too were curious about these things, dummy. That's why they went to Europe and the United States to study. My parents came here to study. That's why I'm here. Africans were also very curious about guns. So much so that the colonial powers formed a pact among themselves to keep modern guns out of African hands. They probably had good cause to do this. I mean the Zulus killed 1300 crack British troops with little more than spears.

    We now develop leading-edge consumer technology products; you might even be using one right now.
     
    None of which were developed organically in Korea by Koreans. You're the one reaping the benefits of the work and toil of others. When I said that a mere handful of Black Americans have invented and innovated more modern technology that all of Asia combined, I meant it.

    A black man was very instrumental in inventing the PC you're using to write your Asian supremacist junk (see Mark Dean).

    A black man invented the modern video game console which formed the basis of the Japanese gaming industry (see Jerry Lawson).

    A black man was highly instrumental in developing the cell phone technology we have today and which your Samsung has turned into a billion dollar business (see Henry T. Thompson).

    Going back further and amid withering racism and Jim Crow, black people invented many of the transformative technologies we use today. Going back further still, we even had black people inventing and innovating as slaves. You mentioned steamboats. Well it was a black slave that perfected propeller technology (see Ben Montgomery). So that which you claim Asians were curious about, while accusing blacks of incuriosity, was in part the intellectual output of a black man. Conversely, Asians were free in their own countries. They were not subjected to debilitating and dehumanizing oppression. Yet they produced nothing. They created nothing. They invented nothing.

    I apologize to any decent Asians. But this character needs a cold dose of reality.

    Koreans invented our own alphabet suited for Korean and the first metal moveable-type printing press. We had sophisticated carpentry, luxury-quality cloth-making, fine ceramics, etc. Not much, but we were hardly savages.
     
    Korea was a primitive stone age society before and during the Korean war. I've seen the films. But unlike you, I'm not alleging that they were stupid or inferior. North Korea today is basically a mirror image of South Korea, absent U.S. largess. You were created by the United States and you've been nurtured by the United States. You've been allowed to dump all your products here while at the same time closing your markets to U.S. products. Because of the American protective umbrella, you can divert funds to other purposes that would otherwise go to defense.

    Your entire country is an American fabrication. Virtually everything you have and everything you to is copied or stolen from America. Your K-pop is derivative of musical stylings invented by the black people you hate so much. Not only the music, but the presentation, the dance routines, the attitudes, the idioms -- all reflect African-American aesthetics. So not only are you unable to invent your own tech, you can't even invent your own pop culture.

    As for “all of Asia,” the list of Nobel Prize winners in physics, chemistry, and medicine speaks for itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Asian_Nobel_laureates. The only “African” winners in those fields are European. Ouch
     
    Given that there are billions of Asians on the planet, the relative infinitesimal number of Asian Nobel Prize winners belies your Asian supremacy polemics. The Nobel, by the way, exists within a Northern European cultural matrix. Duh...that's why an overwhelming majority of the winners have been of Northern European extraction. Well now increasingly Africans are in the mix. And there's absolutely nothing to preclude the possibility that Africans will be among future Nobel Prize winners. In fact in light of your moribund performance, it's not inconceivable that Africans will surpass you in the not too distant future.

    Black Americans are an admixture with Europeans, but even then they can’t begin to match the accomplishments listed above.
     
    But if blacks are genetically inferior to whites and Asians, why would admixed blacks be far more intelligent, far more inventive and far more innovative than fully 100% whites and Asians? Umm...that doesn't make any sense. Sorry.

    Like Chisala, you use sophistry and Kangz-style bravado to ignore the elephant in the room.
     
    Well go play with Chanda. Apparently he's far more indulgent of your Asian supremacy gobbledygook. Chanda is an immigrant. Often times immigrants have a tendency to walk on eggshells. Me, I'm an American. We don't play that shit.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. utu says:
    @Stephen R. Diamond
    You have a flair for the irrelevant. Well, yes, there's no perfect absence of correlation, but that's utterly beside the point.

    If you had a perfect controller like a thermostat that fixes temperature in the room to exactly T=74F regardless of ambient external temperature T_amb which varies between -40F and 105F what exactly do you want to correlate. Obviously covariance between T and T_amb is zero but the correlation is indeterminate because variance of T is zero. But the covariance zero tells us that there is no causal link between room temperature and ambient temperature. Which is correct because the thermostat is perfect. If some physical quantity remains constant the question of causality does not even arise.

    But we can correlate energy consumption of the heater-AC system versus the ambient temperature and establish convention that the energy is negative when AC is on and positive when heater is on. ± sign indicate the direction where energy is flowing in the system And obviously the consumption of energy is driven by the ambient temperature not other way around. However mathematics will not tell you that because covariance is a symmetric function. The causality you can establish from elsewhere like form the physical mechanism if you can understand but not from mathematics.

    I do not really see relevance of links given by simplyamazed to some people pontificating about the so-called Friedman thermostat. It is all very trivial what they talk about and as I can gather w/o a point. And the so-called Friedman thermostat does not demonstrate that correlation with w/o causality or causality w/o correlation do exits.

    I found this that illustrate the depth of profundity of people keep t=yapping about the Million Friedman thermostat (it all goes to the post of some Nick Rove):

    http://justinhohn.typepad.com/blog/2013/01/milton-friedmans-thermostat-analogy.html
    I came across this excerpt from the excellent Nick Rowe. It is an outline of a famous analogy made by Milton Friedman. It shows what can happen when a “variable” that you analyze by statistical methods isn’t varying.

    When variable is not varying it is not a variable and there is nothing to be analyzed. Then this blogger proceeds with example I gave above and speculate what some hypothetical economist would conclude form this situation. It is all nonsense and only show of what caliber people get into studying economics.

    In real world controllers are imperfect and they are unable keep the parameters they suppose to control constants when the external conditions keep changing. They work on feedback principle and simple or complex control functions that has delays and when the external forcing is stochastic no prediction can be made to anticipate changes thus the controlled parameter will not be constant. There will be overshoots and undershoots and oscillations. The profile of control parameter changes is a function of external forcing moderated by the control function, so mathematically T=f(T_amb)≠const, so we end up with correlation and an obvious causation.

    Can anybody prove an example of real world case where there is causation between two parameters X and Y that do not correlate? First please read my comment #80 because trivial cases of periodic function do not count.

    P.S. It seems that it was Matthew Yglesias who injected this banal Friedman thermostat into blogosphere that results in the echo chamber.

    P.P.S. Friedman came up with a metaphor of thermostat (2003) for Fed operations. Fed has several variables that they can tweak like interests rate. They may have several objectives like constant unemployment or constant inflation apart from making rich people even richer. They can increase interest rates and they can cause mass unemployment as Volcker did while he was “fighting” the so called inflation but actually it was the high worker’s wages he was fighting. So yes they do have some kind of thermostat and in this sense Friedman’s metaphor is apt. But to make it work like a thermostat they must have a feedback so they constantly must tweak interest rates so they do not overshoot or undershoot their target of , say unemployment too much. This is rather banal idea but useful for another reason. As it turns out during Volcker time in 1980′s when I began to understand what the fuckers where doing I was using a thermostat as metaphor to explain that by adjustment of one dial the fuckers are able to bust the whole Rust Belt. When Greenspan was pontificating in cryptic language and all analysts and talking heads where trying to decipher his occult wisdom and secret messages nobody confronted him and asked: Mr. Greenspan, you just have one dial. You can turn it up or turn it down. That’s all what you got. There is nothing to it. Please stop obfuscating this simple and banal truth. Would system collapse if people were to find this this banal truth that the king is and always was naked. Greenspan kind of told us he was naked when told some reporter how he liked to adjust his cold and hot water when taking a bath, presumably naked, with his toes. Perhaps he had his interest rated thermostat dial in his bathroom as well. But people believed because many were getting rich.

    Here is cartoon with the serenity prayer for Greenspan that illustrated the times when Greenspan was the God and the invisible hand of market was his right hand.

    http://www.art.com/products/p15063141112-sa-i6842934/warren-miller-and-please-let-alan-greenspan-accept-the-things-he-cannot-change-give-hi-new-yorker-cartoon.htm

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. utu says:
    @K-Drama Kumiho

    Africans’ reactions to Europeans weren’t attended by the same misguided awe that plagued other indigenous peoples.
     
    This is unintentionally damning. You're basically admitting to SSAs being incurious as a whole. Confucian Asians were pretty damn impressed by steam engines, organic chemistry, advanced firearms...because that's the normal reaction of a person who values civilizational and technological progress.

    Were you Koreans, who were technologically primitive a few generations ago, cognitively inferior?
     
    No, but we were clearly culturally maladapted. As a woman, I hardly am wistful for pre-modern Korean culture. Koreans showed that as soon as we stopped holding ourselves back and joined the modern world, we caught up with and surpassed many Europeans within two generations. We now develop leading-edge consumer technology products; you might even be using one right now. And look what a mess we were in in 1953. We are betetr than Japan even in per capita production of per-reviewed scientific publications:
    https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/20k5dk/top_40_countries_by_the_number_of_scientific/

    That's not as flashy as specific inventions, but its part of how science and technology advance.

    Of course when I point out Africa's trajectory over the same period you become defensive:

    First of all, why should they?...nevertheless be expected to replicate precisely the same developmental path?
     
    Nice strawman in the "precisely the same" misrepresentation of my challenge.

    In any case, if SSAs are of comparable or equivalent IQ to NE Asians and Europeans, then surely you must have accomplished something noteworthy in the thousands upon thousands of years before the White Devil showed up. Even South Asians, with lower recorded IQs, have some impressive achievements, starting with base-10 mathematics.

    When I asked you about SSA accomplishments, you again get defensive:

    That question would be better posed to you with respect to Asia. Do you realize that just a handful of Black Americans have invented and innovated more modern technology than all of Asia combined? That includes China, Japan and Korea.
     
    So as expected, you literally can't name anything specific for SSA. Your counter-challenge is farcical. Here's a list of Japanese inventions/discoveries (it's a long one):
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Japanese_inventions_and_discoveries

    Prior to European contact, Koreans invented our own alphabet suited for Korean and the first metal moveable-type printing press. We had sophisticated carpentry, luxury-quality cloth-making, fine ceramics, etc. Not much, but we were hardly savages.

    As for "all of Asia," the list of Nobel Prize winners in physics, chemistry, and medicine speaks for itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Asian_Nobel_laureates. The only "African" winners in those fields are European. Ouch.

    Black Americans are an admixture with Europeans, but even then they can't begin to match the accomplishments listed above. Feel free to try.

    Like Chisala, you use sophistry and Kangz-style bravado to ignore the elephant in the room.

    Here at unz.com we have our own home grown philosopher Priss Factor who sometimes have interesting insights which often are buried in mishmash of fleeting ideas when his thought producing volcano erupts too much. In this case

    http://www.unz.com/imercer/taking-a-knee-is-akin-to-taking-a-pee/#comment-2025837

    he puts a finger on something what appeals to me because I am a strong skeptic of IQ cult as among others I have seen too many shenanigans the IQist can engage in. Here is what Priss wrote:

    Some say blacks fail at dealing with complexity because of lower IQ, but there are blacks with higher IQ, but their attitudes are much the same. Why? Their emotions outrun their intelligence. So, even if they are just as smart as whites or even smarter, their emotions are still stuck in ‘chuck a spear’ or ‘run like mofo’ mentality. This is why even smart blacks like Cornel West and Michael Dyson sound just like rappers.

    The concept that the emotions can totally sabotage your intelligence is obvious to anybody who got angry or scared and lost it. It is possible that some cultures for whatever reasons find themselves in the negative well of intellectual potential when the culturally unchecked and unmitigated emotions keep rationality that is the core of intelligence in arrested development? Is it possible that there is a genetic factor in it? Personally I prefer the former than the latter but I would not exclude the genetic factor possibility. If culture and environment does not keep emotions in check and does not reduce number of situation were people get anger or scared it is very hard to imagine that sober thinking and pondering with reflection, contemplation and introspection will develop. Fear and anger will wipe any developments every time they take hold of an individual or the whole community.

    So whatever causes this excessive emotionality whether it is a culture or some genes activating physiological process and hormone release it will preclude ability to perform on tasks which require patience and concentration like for example taking cognitive tests as well as harmonious cooperation that can’t succeed when outburst of emotions interrupt.

    I used to observe African Americans playing chess. Some of them were pretty good at it. However they were getting way too emotional and they were employing a tactic of trash talking to deconcentrate and intimidate opponents with theatrical and threatening body motions and gestures. So the the game had a strong physical component. By losing energy on this and by deconcentration obviously they could not have been as good as players who put all the energy just into the analyzing game. It is however possible that Karpov could lose in such high pressure environment of verbal abuse. His game would suffer. Clearly Blacks if they continue on this path which I consider is chiefly culturally determined, they will never maximize their intellectual potentials. So they will be on the suboptimal path. I am sure the IQist will not like this idea because they want to see Blacks locked up in the prison of their genes from which there is no escape. Ever. I on the other hand would like to see Blacks having a chance of escaping the prison of their culture which is pathological (for many reasons) and totally unsuitable for modern or modernizing society. While I can imagine that in Africa process of cultural evolution are taking place as a part of natural process however in the US the lowest stratum of Black society does not show any signs of improvement.

    Our interlocutor here Afrosapience who is Haitian by birth and naturalized French instead of telling us what Europe, Poland or Belarus should do to accommodate Blacks he could enlighten as whether culture changes in desirable direction happens in Haiti. Then our other interlocutor Okechukwu who, if I am not mistaken is Igbo but lives in the US, instead of making gleeful prophesies of the end of White race in Europe could tell us how this super rich language he claims Igo and other Nigerian posses helps them to make important and complex decisions like about how to divide budget in community and how they do not let emotion soutrun the intelligence in such situations.

    Read More
    • Replies: @K-Drama Kumiho
    Utu, I take the position that IQ measures something useful, arguably the skill-set conducive to success in a modern, industrial socities, but it wrongheaded to claim to IQ represents general intelligence.

    I've found the marked difference in social skills between mean-representative individuals from groups with a lower relative mean score, and individuals of similar IQ, but from a higher-mean group, to be a compelling challenge to what IQ measures. IQ seems to miss verbal virtuosity and 'common sense' reasoning. It may also miss impressive visual-spatial abilities that outlier human groups such as the Kalahari bushmen or Australian Aboriginals exhibit.

    I agree that manifest intelligence, as wisdom or achievement, seems to be heavily moderated by emotion. College professors, obviously high in raw IQ-type intelligence, who fail at disinterested scholarship, which is sadly a large portion of academics outside of STEM, almost always are emotionally invested in a 'cause' or tribal identity of some type. This problem of selective honesty and adhering to narratives is not a new phenomenon, but certain developments in 20th Century philosophy sanctified what were once failings as acceptable conduct in the academy.

    I agree too that while genetics may play a role in human group-level differences, it is important to recognize the powerful influence of socialization. One of my major frustrations is how 'racist' has gone from opposition to biological determinism and denial of fair opportunity to individuals, to a cover for culture and religion. It leaves us in the position where structural societal issues are the only 'acceptable' targets of criticism. That hampers progress on all fronts in a pluralistic world.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. David Landes, in his economic history, thought that culture was the key. He did not go further to look at the progenitors of such cultures.

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/david-landes-economic-historian

    Here is a speculation about a possible sequence:

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-puzzle-comes-before-solution

    Here is a somewhat differing view

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/does-culture-cultivate-or-do-you-need

    As to the relative strengths of cultures, one measure is what one culture borrows from another.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  124. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Afrosapiens

    Singapore, rather than being an exception, may be the embodiment of the rule.
     
    Singapore couldn't be the embodiement of anything else but the fact that a tax-haven city state located on the busiest maritime trade route in the world has to be a successful nation.

    But:
    -Singapore is not the richest city-state in the world
    -Not the richest tax-heaven in the world
    -Not the richest center of trade.

    A better vindication would be Hawaii with the plurality of its population being descended from Japanese coolies. Hawaii is definitely not Singapore, not even close to.

    Also, disease burden correlates with IQ much better than latitude or temperature.

    The biome ranking that you show just reflects habitability (Disease burden, soil fertility, temperature, precipitation...) and closely matches the distribution of world population density.

    It all makes sense without evolutionary just-so stories.

    Singapore was unpopulated when the British got permission to make it their turf. The local Malay rulers were ‘tak apa’ about the whole deal. Singapore’s success is due to British systems and Chinese intelligence and work ethic.

    This is absolutely the exact same dynamic playing out in Malaysia, except that the economic success is lesser because the Chinese represent a much smaller percentage of the population and the Malays have monopolised the government and run it in their typical lackluster style. For further comparison, compare development along the Chinese-intensive areas of peninsular Malaysia like Penang Island and Malacca, with Malay-dominated regions like Perlis and Terengganu.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Santoculto
    Extreme climates more than increase it limitates .... creativity, what we are really talking about, [increasing of intelligence at point to also increase higher creativity]. So, too dry, too cold or too hot, and it's likely that instead a challenge to increase intelligence [and creativity], to win the environment, this harsh conditions will force living beings to maximize their adaptations = reduction of phenotypical variability as well superlativities; increase of pragmatic adaptative approach.

    Maybe it's not:

    humans were exposed to cold regions and became smarter but firstly, how they got there* During this expansion to polar regions, humans becoming smarter/aka self-controlled while when this expansion was limited for harsh climate they stoped to increase their intelligence.

    Even seems interesting to compare how fitted climates/biomas tend to be with personality types. ''equatorial personality''...


    bad grammar,
    still breathe...

    Hot and cold is not the same.

    Excess heat is only a mortal threat in the absence of water and so is not a threat at all in many hot countries. It is still a massive evolutionary guide though as it encourages minimal heat generation and hence minimal energy expenditure. In tropical climates, planning for the future is detrimental since there will always be some kind of fruit in season and the best way to keep operating in the oppressive heat is to think as little as possible.

    Cold kills. Through exposure and through starvation. In climates where cold is a treat, thinking of ways to store food and avoid exposure is essential to survival.

    Too hot -> more stupid
    Too cold -> more intelligent

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    I know, obviously that they are not the same, but i'm talking about constancy. Colder climates is always cold, hotter climates is always hot [equatorial for example].

    Too hot -> more stupid
    Too cold -> more intelligent
     
    I don't think we are talking about stupidity versus intelligence, but short term intelligence versus long term intelligence. I don't find amerindians who live in Amazonia and african tribes who live in savannah ''stupid''.

    And many behaviors of short term-thinkers in long-term environments/societies is due to their maladaptations and not ''stupidity'' [chronically apophenia) per si.

    We are always comparing apples with oranges.

    Hunter gatherers descendents versus post-''civilized' ones.
    , @Santoculto
    Hotter climates AND enormous biodiversity [insects, animals...] around tend to select to shorter thinking and not necessarily because it's considerably less dangerous than in subpolar regions. It's dangerous/difficult in different ways.

    Don't make sense build a very solid house in tropical/equatorial regions.

    My main hypothesis is that humans were gaining their future-oriented intelligence [or increasing its frequency as well its expression] during their migrations and not after, when they arrived in extreme geographical areas. So when they arrived to this very colder areas, they stopped to increase/sophisticate their abstract/future-thinking intelligence. When we talk about civilization we are talking about creativity. Creativity seems fit perfectly in climatically inconstant regions with temperate climate as specially in continental temperate climate. Humans evolved and adapted psychologically and cognitively to each climate. Again i'm not saying creativity is not a universal human feature but it's tend to be more required in places with many challenges. Even people who are not highly creative tend to be forced to think in divergent ways when they are strongly challenged, increasing their individual creative potential.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. Svigor says:

    Why the Unz mania for this intelligence stuff? This is utterly devoid of any scientific merit and all proceeds from wanting to confirm a belief. Ir’s on a par with Birtherism.

    If one is concerned with manias, intelligence mania seems an odd choice for focus. Anti-HBD mania grips the entire Western world. The delusion of human group cognitive equality is easily the West’s most pervasive and deleterious anti-science mania.

    But you’re right, IQ fetishism is on par with Birtherism and Creationism; they don’t hold a candle to the mania for the delusion of human group cognitive equality.

    As for wanting to confirm a belief; don’t make me laugh. Leftist Creationism (delusion of human group cognitive equality) takes the cake, bakes another cake, and takes that one, too. The rest aren’t even crumbs next to that.

    Which is why civilization only popped up in areas with the right climate that could sustain large populations with food production. Areas like this are where writing was invented independently without any outside influence.

    What I find more interesting is the places where writing and literacy never became a thing, or much of one, despite contact with literate civilizations. Same goes for the rest of human innovation; my prediction is sub-Saharan Africans will continue to produce little of intellectual worth, despite having access to everything via their smartphones.

    It’s also worth noting that saying cold winter increased intelligence is the post hoc, ergo proper hoc fallacy.

    No, you are engaging in what I’ll call the reverse post hoc, ergo proper hoc fallacy: someone argues that something happened after something else, and you are using that fact to falsely attribute a post hoc, ergo proper hoc fallacy.

    He can’t keep those pesky immigrants out if he does that. He needs to convince the world that they’re intellectually incapacitated genetically. And that they have immutable characteristics that are antithetical to western norms. It’s all a farce, actually.

    This makes no sense. American Blacks are far more similar to African Blacks than they are to Whites. Bringing Blacks to a place in which Whites thrive has not made Blacks thrive. Whatever is “wrong” with Blacks, it is persistent. Ultimately I don’t give a shit if you call it disease or behavioral genetics.

    There is no way around Black “failure.” It’s something persistent, whether that something is disease, or IQ, or some pathology that prevents them from taking up education (which some dream is the horse drawing the IQ cart). Whatever. You can even blame it on YT, if you like; the cause is still irremediable. YT can no more cure his “causing” black “failure” than he can any of the other causes.

    Most of the world, especially in Africa would laugh at the idea of measuring intelligence. Most of the world, especially in Africa have other conceptions of human worth.

    There’s the tell. Leftists equate IQ to “worth,” a value judgement, and work backwards from there.

    Megalomaniacal levels of many, majority of Africans is impressive.

    If we could harness ego for energy, Blacks would have colonized Proxima Centauri by now.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  127. Svigor says:

    The concept that the emotions can totally sabotage your intelligence is obvious to anybody who got angry or scared and lost it. It is possible that some cultures for whatever reasons find themselves in the negative well of intellectual potential when the culturally unchecked and unmitigated emotions keep rationality that is the core of intelligence in arrested development? Is it possible that there is a genetic factor in it? Personally I prefer the former than the latter but I would not exclude the genetic factor possibility.

    It’s obvious that human behavior is genetically driven, and that differences in human group behavior are largely down to genetic differences. Blacks are more extraverted and aggressive, less conscientious or open to experience than other races, for example. Tell yourself it’s all cultural if it makes you happy, but Occam’s Razor cuts the other way.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  128. @Anonymous
    Hot and cold is not the same.

    Excess heat is only a mortal threat in the absence of water and so is not a threat at all in many hot countries. It is still a massive evolutionary guide though as it encourages minimal heat generation and hence minimal energy expenditure. In tropical climates, planning for the future is detrimental since there will always be some kind of fruit in season and the best way to keep operating in the oppressive heat is to think as little as possible.

    Cold kills. Through exposure and through starvation. In climates where cold is a treat, thinking of ways to store food and avoid exposure is essential to survival.

    Too hot -> more stupid
    Too cold -> more intelligent

    I know, obviously that they are not the same, but i’m talking about constancy. Colder climates is always cold, hotter climates is always hot [equatorial for example].

    Too hot -> more stupid
    Too cold -> more intelligent

    I don’t think we are talking about stupidity versus intelligence, but short term intelligence versus long term intelligence. I don’t find amerindians who live in Amazonia and african tribes who live in savannah ”stupid”.

    And many behaviors of short term-thinkers in long-term environments/societies is due to their maladaptations and not ”stupidity” [chronically apophenia) per si.

    We are always comparing apples with oranges.

    Hunter gatherers descendents versus post-”civilized’ ones.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. @Anonymous
    Hot and cold is not the same.

    Excess heat is only a mortal threat in the absence of water and so is not a threat at all in many hot countries. It is still a massive evolutionary guide though as it encourages minimal heat generation and hence minimal energy expenditure. In tropical climates, planning for the future is detrimental since there will always be some kind of fruit in season and the best way to keep operating in the oppressive heat is to think as little as possible.

    Cold kills. Through exposure and through starvation. In climates where cold is a treat, thinking of ways to store food and avoid exposure is essential to survival.

    Too hot -> more stupid
    Too cold -> more intelligent

    Hotter climates AND enormous biodiversity [insects, animals...] around tend to select to shorter thinking and not necessarily because it’s considerably less dangerous than in subpolar regions. It’s dangerous/difficult in different ways.

    Don’t make sense build a very solid house in tropical/equatorial regions.

    My main hypothesis is that humans were gaining their future-oriented intelligence [or increasing its frequency as well its expression] during their migrations and not after, when they arrived in extreme geographical areas. So when they arrived to this very colder areas, they stopped to increase/sophisticate their abstract/future-thinking intelligence. When we talk about civilization we are talking about creativity. Creativity seems fit perfectly in climatically inconstant regions with temperate climate as specially in continental temperate climate. Humans evolved and adapted psychologically and cognitively to each climate. Again i’m not saying creativity is not a universal human feature but it’s tend to be more required in places with many challenges. Even people who are not highly creative tend to be forced to think in divergent ways when they are strongly challenged, increasing their individual creative potential.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. Factorize says:

    We are at the very moment in which average human intelligence will dramatically increase. There is no precedent for what is about to happen. The Genetic Singularity has arrived.

    High tech is not required. Simple selection amongst embryos would increase
    geno-g by a single SD up to many SDs. If selection of individual chromosomes in gametes or embryos became possible, then the potential increase in IQ would be very large, perhaps 20 SD. The genetic potential for extremely high intelligence is embedded within everyone’s DNA.

    Why look in the rear view mirror when the road ahead is so promising?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh


    Why look in the rear view mirror when the road ahead is so promising?
     
    I like this attitude, though to be fair, due to the cost of the procedures, I suspect it'll just trigger ever more elite sorting.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. Okechukwu says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    Thank you for that interesting reply.

    I am surprised that you do not point to the problem of much discussion by the likes of Lynn, Rushton and probably Braun that their data samples are far too small and limited to represent the enormous genetic variety within Africa that contrasts with the narrow out of Africa lineages of the rest of humanity. By accident and by mostly natural selection there could be mini Indias within African regions and maybe even within people of one language group that had castes. Aren't Igbo known for being smart ("Jews of Africa" I see is treated as more than metaphorical by some)? And also as having castes?

    Perhaps Braun has detected a real connection between the kind of abstract thinking that supports morality in any but the simplest circumstances and IQ. That might have as much to do with class, with the Flynn Effect and with moves from rural to sophisticated urban lives as with genes for cognition.

    I am surprised that you do not point to the problem of much discussion by the likes of Lynn, Rushton and probably Braun that their data samples are far too small and limited to represent the enormous genetic variety within Africa that contrasts with the narrow out of Africa lineages of the rest of humanity.

    Well it’s already a foregone conclusion Lynn, Rushton, Braun et al. are frauds.

    You hit on an interesting point. If human populations are segmentable into intellectually superior and inferior then it’s entirely possible that we will find the smartest people in the world in Africa. Taking HBD theory to its proper conclusion, if we delineate human genes in the minutiae it’s not inconceivable that populations with richer gene pools are endowed with genes and frequencies for intelligence that are absent in other relatively bottlenecked and inbred populations.

    Aren’t Igbo known for being smart (“Jews of Africa” I see is treated as more than metaphorical by some)? And also as having castes?

    Yes, the smart Igbo is a stereotype. Of course, Igbos aren’t always smart but they have suffered collective persecution on account of being perceived as smart and “Jew-like.” The Biafran civil war often was framed by northern Muslims in terms of a battle against the Jews. I’m agnostic about the Jewish connection. Some of our cultural practices are eerily but probably coincidentally similar.

    Igbos don’t practice a caste system. Their overriding sensibility is devotion to family — broad, extended families that eventually encompasses all of Igboland and the diaspora. There is no Igbo equivalent of the word “cousin.” Even distant cousins are called brothers and sisters. To specifically identify someone as a cousin requires explication.

    Igbos do venerate education, achievement and success. That’s the closest thing to a caste system we have, with high achievers on top. The competition to get there and to outdo each other, even among siblings, can be vicious. It does promote successful outcomes but it also engenders envy and ill will.

    Perhaps Braun has detected a real connection between the kind of abstract thinking that supports morality in any but the simplest circumstances and IQ.

    Morality is a relative and subjective concept. There were slaveholders who considered themselves paragons and virtue and morality. Making pernicious judgments about an entire continent based on superficial interactions and deeply-held biases is in fact immoral. Therefore, ironically, Braun himself is immoral.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Relative is relative...

    Because some people considered themselves morally correct even when they weren't it's doesn't mean they were correct. If morality is relative and subjective why white guilt?? Why blame the whitey by enslavement if morality is relative and subjective, I mean, no have objective criteria???

    "Is in FACT IMMORAL"

    ...

    It's not relative or subjective??
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Your mention of envy brings to mind the 1966 (in Germsn, 1970 in English) book "Envy" by Helmut Schoeck. He discusses inter alia the way the overcoming of envy was so important to economic and cultural advance and the different ways in which it was dealt with in Ancient Greece and amongst Christians. I remember that he noted the way superior West African farmers would hide their skills, hard work and results from others for fear of envy.

    Why do you describe Lynn, Rushton and Braun all as "frauds"? Even systematically wrong or fallacious doesn't usually imply that someone is behaving fraudulently.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    I see that memory may have failed me. I Googled "are there castes in Africa" and found plenty of examples but not, of course, Igbo. It would be interesting to compare Indian and Africsn castes on a number of aspects and dimensions. And to add comparison to class systems.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. @Okechukwu

    I am surprised that you do not point to the problem of much discussion by the likes of Lynn, Rushton and probably Braun that their data samples are far too small and limited to represent the enormous genetic variety within Africa that contrasts with the narrow out of Africa lineages of the rest of humanity.
     
    Well it’s already a foregone conclusion Lynn, Rushton, Braun et al. are frauds.

    You hit on an interesting point. If human populations are segmentable into intellectually superior and inferior then it’s entirely possible that we will find the smartest people in the world in Africa. Taking HBD theory to its proper conclusion, if we delineate human genes in the minutiae it’s not inconceivable that populations with richer gene pools are endowed with genes and frequencies for intelligence that are absent in other relatively bottlenecked and inbred populations.


    Aren’t Igbo known for being smart (“Jews of Africa” I see is treated as more than metaphorical by some)? And also as having castes?
     
    Yes, the smart Igbo is a stereotype. Of course, Igbos aren’t always smart but they have suffered collective persecution on account of being perceived as smart and “Jew-like.” The Biafran civil war often was framed by northern Muslims in terms of a battle against the Jews. I’m agnostic about the Jewish connection. Some of our cultural practices are eerily but probably coincidentally similar.

    Igbos don’t practice a caste system. Their overriding sensibility is devotion to family — broad, extended families that eventually encompasses all of Igboland and the diaspora. There is no Igbo equivalent of the word “cousin.” Even distant cousins are called brothers and sisters. To specifically identify someone as a cousin requires explication.

    Igbos do venerate education, achievement and success. That’s the closest thing to a caste system we have, with high achievers on top. The competition to get there and to outdo each other, even among siblings, can be vicious. It does promote successful outcomes but it also engenders envy and ill will.


    Perhaps Braun has detected a real connection between the kind of abstract thinking that supports morality in any but the simplest circumstances and IQ.
     
    Morality is a relative and subjective concept. There were slaveholders who considered themselves paragons and virtue and morality. Making pernicious judgments about an entire continent based on superficial interactions and deeply-held biases is in fact immoral. Therefore, ironically, Braun himself is immoral.

    Relative is relative…

    Because some people considered themselves morally correct even when they weren’t it’s doesn’t mean they were correct. If morality is relative and subjective why white guilt?? Why blame the whitey by enslavement if morality is relative and subjective, I mean, no have objective criteria???

    “Is in FACT IMMORAL”

    It’s not relative or subjective??

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Very good catch!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. @Factorize
    We are at the very moment in which average human intelligence will dramatically increase. There is no precedent for what is about to happen. The Genetic Singularity has arrived.

    High tech is not required. Simple selection amongst embryos would increase
    geno-g by a single SD up to many SDs. If selection of individual chromosomes in gametes or embryos became possible, then the potential increase in IQ would be very large, perhaps 20 SD. The genetic potential for extremely high intelligence is embedded within everyone's DNA.

    Why look in the rear view mirror when the road ahead is so promising?

    Why look in the rear view mirror when the road ahead is so promising?

    I like this attitude, though to be fair, due to the cost of the procedures, I suspect it’ll just trigger ever more elite sorting.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. Okechukwu says:
    @K-Drama Kumiho

    Africans’ reactions to Europeans weren’t attended by the same misguided awe that plagued other indigenous peoples.
     
    This is unintentionally damning. You're basically admitting to SSAs being incurious as a whole. Confucian Asians were pretty damn impressed by steam engines, organic chemistry, advanced firearms...because that's the normal reaction of a person who values civilizational and technological progress.

    Were you Koreans, who were technologically primitive a few generations ago, cognitively inferior?
     
    No, but we were clearly culturally maladapted. As a woman, I hardly am wistful for pre-modern Korean culture. Koreans showed that as soon as we stopped holding ourselves back and joined the modern world, we caught up with and surpassed many Europeans within two generations. We now develop leading-edge consumer technology products; you might even be using one right now. And look what a mess we were in in 1953. We are betetr than Japan even in per capita production of per-reviewed scientific publications:
    https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/20k5dk/top_40_countries_by_the_number_of_scientific/

    That's not as flashy as specific inventions, but its part of how science and technology advance.

    Of course when I point out Africa's trajectory over the same period you become defensive:

    First of all, why should they?...nevertheless be expected to replicate precisely the same developmental path?
     
    Nice strawman in the "precisely the same" misrepresentation of my challenge.

    In any case, if SSAs are of comparable or equivalent IQ to NE Asians and Europeans, then surely you must have accomplished something noteworthy in the thousands upon thousands of years before the White Devil showed up. Even South Asians, with lower recorded IQs, have some impressive achievements, starting with base-10 mathematics.

    When I asked you about SSA accomplishments, you again get defensive:

    That question would be better posed to you with respect to Asia. Do you realize that just a handful of Black Americans have invented and innovated more modern technology than all of Asia combined? That includes China, Japan and Korea.
     
    So as expected, you literally can't name anything specific for SSA. Your counter-challenge is farcical. Here's a list of Japanese inventions/discoveries (it's a long one):
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Japanese_inventions_and_discoveries

    Prior to European contact, Koreans invented our own alphabet suited for Korean and the first metal moveable-type printing press. We had sophisticated carpentry, luxury-quality cloth-making, fine ceramics, etc. Not much, but we were hardly savages.

    As for "all of Asia," the list of Nobel Prize winners in physics, chemistry, and medicine speaks for itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Asian_Nobel_laureates. The only "African" winners in those fields are European. Ouch.

    Black Americans are an admixture with Europeans, but even then they can't begin to match the accomplishments listed above. Feel free to try.

    Like Chisala, you use sophistry and Kangz-style bravado to ignore the elephant in the room.

    This is unintentionally damning. You’re basically admitting to SSAs being incurious as a whole. Confucian Asians were pretty damn impressed by steam engines, organic chemistry, advanced firearms…because that’s the normal reaction of a person who values civilizational and technological progress.

    Africans too were curious about these things, dummy. That’s why they went to Europe and the United States to study. My parents came here to study. That’s why I’m here. Africans were also very curious about guns. So much so that the colonial powers formed a pact among themselves to keep modern guns out of African hands. They probably had good cause to do this. I mean the Zulus killed 1300 crack British troops with little more than spears.

    We now develop leading-edge consumer technology products; you might even be using one right now.

    None of which were developed organically in Korea by Koreans. You’re the one reaping the benefits of the work and toil of others. When I said that a mere handful of Black Americans have invented and innovated more modern technology that all of Asia combined, I meant it.

    A black man was very instrumental in inventing the PC you’re using to write your Asian supremacist junk (see Mark Dean).

    A black man invented the modern video game console which formed the basis of the Japanese gaming industry (see Jerry Lawson).

    A black man was highly instrumental in developing the cell phone technology we have today and which your Samsung has turned into a billion dollar business (see Henry T. Thompson).

    Going back further and amid withering racism and Jim Crow, black people invented many of the transformative technologies we use today. Going back further still, we even had black people inventing and innovating as slaves. You mentioned steamboats. Well it was a black slave that perfected propeller technology (see Ben Montgomery). So that which you claim Asians were curious about, while accusing blacks of incuriosity, was in part the intellectual output of a black man. Conversely, Asians were free in their own countries. They were not subjected to debilitating and dehumanizing oppression. Yet they produced nothing. They created nothing. They invented nothing.

    I apologize to any decent Asians. But this character needs a cold dose of reality.

    Koreans invented our own alphabet suited for Korean and the first metal moveable-type printing press. We had sophisticated carpentry, luxury-quality cloth-making, fine ceramics, etc. Not much, but we were hardly savages.

    Korea was a primitive stone age society before and during the Korean war. I’ve seen the films. But unlike you, I’m not alleging that they were stupid or inferior. North Korea today is basically a mirror image of South Korea, absent U.S. largess. You were created by the United States and you’ve been nurtured by the United States. You’ve been allowed to dump all your products here while at the same time closing your markets to U.S. products. Because of the American protective umbrella, you can divert funds to other purposes that would otherwise go to defense.

    Your entire country is an American fabrication. Virtually everything you have and everything you to is copied or stolen from America. Your K-pop is derivative of musical stylings invented by the black people you hate so much. Not only the music, but the presentation, the dance routines, the attitudes, the idioms — all reflect African-American aesthetics. So not only are you unable to invent your own tech, you can’t even invent your own pop culture.

    As for “all of Asia,” the list of Nobel Prize winners in physics, chemistry, and medicine speaks for itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Asian_Nobel_laureates. The only “African” winners in those fields are European. Ouch

    Given that there are billions of Asians on the planet, the relative infinitesimal number of Asian Nobel Prize winners belies your Asian supremacy polemics. The Nobel, by the way, exists within a Northern European cultural matrix. Duh…that’s why an overwhelming majority of the winners have been of Northern European extraction. Well now increasingly Africans are in the mix. And there’s absolutely nothing to preclude the possibility that Africans will be among future Nobel Prize winners. In fact in light of your moribund performance, it’s not inconceivable that Africans will surpass you in the not too distant future.

    Black Americans are an admixture with Europeans, but even then they can’t begin to match the accomplishments listed above.

    But if blacks are genetically inferior to whites and Asians, why would admixed blacks be far more intelligent, far more inventive and far more innovative than fully 100% whites and Asians? Umm…that doesn’t make any sense. Sorry.

    Like Chisala, you use sophistry and Kangz-style bravado to ignore the elephant in the room.

    Well go play with Chanda. Apparently he’s far more indulgent of your Asian supremacy gobbledygook. Chanda is an immigrant. Often times immigrants have a tendency to walk on eggshells. Me, I’m an American. We don’t play that shit.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Afrosapiens
    Damn bro, you definitely slay. I'll jump back into the conversation tomorrow.
    , @utu
    Africans too were curious about these things, dummy. That’s why they went to Europe and the United States to study. My parents came here to study. That’s why I’m here.

    Why did they abandon you here in America? Because I presume once your parents learned how to build the steam engine or whatever they got so curious about they went back to Nigeria to repay with their newly acquired knowledge the Nigerian government that funded their studies in America with money it got probably from UN. What Nigeria or any African country gets from your sorry ass staying in America? How are you helping to turn African into the next South Korea and contributing to your great vision of flooding the world with African Nobel prizes? In the meantime you should moderate your badmouthing of Asians because your future may depend on them.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzyaa2tfwBk
    , @K-Drama Kumiho
    Okechukwu, the Once and Future Kang, writes:

    Korea was a primitive stone age society before and during the Korean war.
     
    "Stone Age" is a concept with an actual anthropological meaning. Koreans had been working metal for over two thousand years, so we were not "stone age" by definition. The pettiness and desperation of your insult speaks for itself. This outburst puts the rest of your gratuitous anti-Korean remarks in perspective.

    Conversely, Asians were free in their own countries. They were not subjected to debilitating and dehumanizing oppression. Yet they produced nothing. They created nothing. They invented nothing.
     
    Apparently you need pointed out to you that history did not just begin when Europeans began to exert an influence in Subsahran Africa.

    Your statement about Asian history shows laughable ignorance of European colonialism and influence in Asia, as well as gross ignorance of devastating intra-Asian conflict.

    And by "created nothing" and "invented nothing" you mean aside from gunpowder, paper, the compass, the mechanical clock, smelting, silk production, various agricultural innovations, and on and on.


    When I said that a mere handful of Black Americans have invented and innovated more modern technology that all of Asia combined, I meant it.
     
    Well,I posted links with dozens of Asian inventions, discoveries, and Nobel laureates, plus a general measure of per capita scientific output via peer-reviewed publications. You named four African-Americans.

    None of which were developed organically in Korea by Koreans. You’re the one reaping the benefits of the work and toil of others.
     
    Wow, talk about a shameless double-standard. Your African-Americans are given full, undivided credit by you, despite working in an overwhelmingly white context, but Koreans get no credit for our contributions. Could you look any more bitter and desperate?

    …why would admixed blacks be far more intelligent, far more inventive and far more innovative than fully 100% whites and Asians?
     
    Your very question just shows you don't understand how group averages work versus the status of any given individual, nor grasp how admixture could impact genetically-regulated behavior.

    It's not worth engaging you further. You seem to exemplify the "We wuz Kangz" mentality.


    In fact in light of your moribund performance, it’s not inconceivable that Africans will surpass you in the not too distant future.
     
    Q.E.D.
    , @Jason Liu
    Ah, the old list of "black inventors" that turn out to be cogs in the machine with tangential involvement in developing "their" inventions. I'm sure those names will be corroborated by mainstream history.

    Generally I am not sympathetic to strict HBD hierarchies, but you've revealed yourself as a joke.

    PS: The egalitarian mindset is a white invention, and a delusional one at that. Free yourself from it.
    , @Anon
    Here we see a Negro going full We Wuz.

    >Mark Dean

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Mark_Dean_(computer_scientist)

    Did swell work but didn't invent it.

    >Jerry Lawson

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Home_video_game_console

    Ralph H. Pier was the first to map out a home video game. With the Magnavox Odyssey being the first console.

    >A black man was highly instrumental in developing the cell phone technology we have today and which your Samsung has turned into a billion dollar business (see Henry T. Thompson).

    http://conservative-headlines.com/2014/02/black-history-month-myth-of-the-day-the-cell-phone/

    Even a site as cucked as Wikipedia doesn't lend any credence to your We Wuzzing:

    https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone

    >More We Wuz

    https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propeller#Early_developments

    https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stevens_(inventor)

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ericsson

    Bonus:

    http://www.niggermania.com/tom/blackinventionmyths/index.html

    >Nobel Prize

    Claiming that there's some Northern European conspiracy to keep out non-Northern Europeans is something a member of a low-trust group (Blacks, Muslims) would say, as if everybody else was just like them.

    Also:

    http://www.jinfo.org/Nobel_Prizes.html

    https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_Nobel_laureates

    Askenazi and Sephardi Jews are too highly represented in Nobel Prize winners to harp on population or North European Privilege (Or are Jews suddenly accepted as fellow Aryans now)?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. @Okechukwu

    I am surprised that you do not point to the problem of much discussion by the likes of Lynn, Rushton and probably Braun that their data samples are far too small and limited to represent the enormous genetic variety within Africa that contrasts with the narrow out of Africa lineages of the rest of humanity.
     
    Well it’s already a foregone conclusion Lynn, Rushton, Braun et al. are frauds.

    You hit on an interesting point. If human populations are segmentable into intellectually superior and inferior then it’s entirely possible that we will find the smartest people in the world in Africa. Taking HBD theory to its proper conclusion, if we delineate human genes in the minutiae it’s not inconceivable that populations with richer gene pools are endowed with genes and frequencies for intelligence that are absent in other relatively bottlenecked and inbred populations.


    Aren’t Igbo known for being smart (“Jews of Africa” I see is treated as more than metaphorical by some)? And also as having castes?
     
    Yes, the smart Igbo is a stereotype. Of course, Igbos aren’t always smart but they have suffered collective persecution on account of being perceived as smart and “Jew-like.” The Biafran civil war often was framed by northern Muslims in terms of a battle against the Jews. I’m agnostic about the Jewish connection. Some of our cultural practices are eerily but probably coincidentally similar.

    Igbos don’t practice a caste system. Their overriding sensibility is devotion to family — broad, extended families that eventually encompasses all of Igboland and the diaspora. There is no Igbo equivalent of the word “cousin.” Even distant cousins are called brothers and sisters. To specifically identify someone as a cousin requires explication.

    Igbos do venerate education, achievement and success. That’s the closest thing to a caste system we have, with high achievers on top. The competition to get there and to outdo each other, even among siblings, can be vicious. It does promote successful outcomes but it also engenders envy and ill will.


    Perhaps Braun has detected a real connection between the kind of abstract thinking that supports morality in any but the simplest circumstances and IQ.
     
    Morality is a relative and subjective concept. There were slaveholders who considered themselves paragons and virtue and morality. Making pernicious judgments about an entire continent based on superficial interactions and deeply-held biases is in fact immoral. Therefore, ironically, Braun himself is immoral.

    Your mention of envy brings to mind the 1966 (in Germsn, 1970 in English) book “Envy” by Helmut Schoeck. He discusses inter alia the way the overcoming of envy was so important to economic and cultural advance and the different ways in which it was dealt with in Ancient Greece and amongst Christians. I remember that he noted the way superior West African farmers would hide their skills, hard work and results from others for fear of envy.

    Why do you describe Lynn, Rushton and Braun all as “frauds”? Even systematically wrong or fallacious doesn’t usually imply that someone is behaving fraudulently.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. @Okechukwu

    Actually, he does not need to do much convincing. Most of the world including people in Africa for wrong or right reasons already believe that there is a significant cognitive deficit among Sub Saharan Africans.
     
    Actually, no. Sub-Saharan Africans ultimately rejected colonialism because upon interaction with Europeans they didn't find them to be cognitively superior. Often they found the opposite to be the case.

    As far as the rest of the world, I haven't found that they ascribe the myriad problems in Africa to intellectual deficiencies. That's hardly in the top 100 list of potential causes. The largest corporations in the world are making a beeline to Africa to leverage the intellectual capital there.

    People like Dr. Thompson or Davide Piffer or our res here would just like to get a scientific confirmation for this prejudice.
     
    Bingo! Jackpot! You are absolutely correct. But they will fail as their predecessors have failed for hundreds if not thousands of years.

    If however iq phenotype will be correlated to within the twin studies heritability with the genotype and a significant racial differences will established then you and Afrosapiens are fucked.
     
    Yeah, fucked among a tiny fringe of keyboard racists sitting in their trailer parks. Hardly fucked in the real world which enshrines individuality. Furthermore, no one disputes that intelligence has a heritable component. Establishing that fact in twin studies wouldn't uphold supremacist ideologies.

    Then you and Afrosapiens will be the first who will want to have their IQ tattooed on their foreheads to signal that you are above the expected value of your racial groups.
     
    Haha. You should write for Hollywood. That's a fictitious dystopian future that is just begging for a talented scriptwriter to treat. Big hint: It'll never happen in the real world.

    Okechukwu and Afrosapiens Europe is not really a place for you
     
    I don't live in Europe, as you know. I would never live in Europe because I can't stand soccer. Afro seems to be doing just fine there, however, as are millions of other blacks. My own relatives live in England and get on just fine there. Some of them speak such a thickly accented British English that I can barely understand what they're saying. Often when I drift off into peculiarly Southern California speech patterns, they say the same about me. Surely those are examples of mimicry, no?

    James Watson, co-discoverer of the DNA molecule, said “I am inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really.” That sounds like a wise opinion to me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    That seems like an appeal to authority (although he has no authority there). Why do HBDers like fallacies so much? Post hoc, ergo propter hoc, appeal to authority, some use appeal to emotion, etc.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. @utu
    Here at unz.com we have our own home grown philosopher Priss Factor who sometimes have interesting insights which often are buried in mishmash of fleeting ideas when his thought producing volcano erupts too much. In this case

    http://www.unz.com/imercer/taking-a-knee-is-akin-to-taking-a-pee/#comment-2025837

    he puts a finger on something what appeals to me because I am a strong skeptic of IQ cult as among others I have seen too many shenanigans the IQist can engage in. Here is what Priss wrote:

    Some say blacks fail at dealing with complexity because of lower IQ, but there are blacks with higher IQ, but their attitudes are much the same. Why? Their emotions outrun their intelligence. So, even if they are just as smart as whites or even smarter, their emotions are still stuck in ‘chuck a spear’ or ‘run like mofo’ mentality. This is why even smart blacks like Cornel West and Michael Dyson sound just like rappers.
     
    The concept that the emotions can totally sabotage your intelligence is obvious to anybody who got angry or scared and lost it. It is possible that some cultures for whatever reasons find themselves in the negative well of intellectual potential when the culturally unchecked and unmitigated emotions keep rationality that is the core of intelligence in arrested development? Is it possible that there is a genetic factor in it? Personally I prefer the former than the latter but I would not exclude the genetic factor possibility. If culture and environment does not keep emotions in check and does not reduce number of situation were people get anger or scared it is very hard to imagine that sober thinking and pondering with reflection, contemplation and introspection will develop. Fear and anger will wipe any developments every time they take hold of an individual or the whole community.

    So whatever causes this excessive emotionality whether it is a culture or some genes activating physiological process and hormone release it will preclude ability to perform on tasks which require patience and concentration like for example taking cognitive tests as well as harmonious cooperation that can't succeed when outburst of emotions interrupt.

    I used to observe African Americans playing chess. Some of them were pretty good at it. However they were getting way too emotional and they were employing a tactic of trash talking to deconcentrate and intimidate opponents with theatrical and threatening body motions and gestures. So the the game had a strong physical component. By losing energy on this and by deconcentration obviously they could not have been as good as players who put all the energy just into the analyzing game. It is however possible that Karpov could lose in such high pressure environment of verbal abuse. His game would suffer. Clearly Blacks if they continue on this path which I consider is chiefly culturally determined, they will never maximize their intellectual potentials. So they will be on the suboptimal path. I am sure the IQist will not like this idea because they want to see Blacks locked up in the prison of their genes from which there is no escape. Ever. I on the other hand would like to see Blacks having a chance of escaping the prison of their culture which is pathological (for many reasons) and totally unsuitable for modern or modernizing society. While I can imagine that in Africa process of cultural evolution are taking place as a part of natural process however in the US the lowest stratum of Black society does not show any signs of improvement.

    Our interlocutor here Afrosapience who is Haitian by birth and naturalized French instead of telling us what Europe, Poland or Belarus should do to accommodate Blacks he could enlighten as whether culture changes in desirable direction happens in Haiti. Then our other interlocutor Okechukwu who, if I am not mistaken is Igbo but lives in the US, instead of making gleeful prophesies of the end of White race in Europe could tell us how this super rich language he claims Igo and other Nigerian posses helps them to make important and complex decisions like about how to divide budget in community and how they do not let emotion soutrun the intelligence in such situations.

    Utu, I take the position that IQ measures something useful, arguably the skill-set conducive to success in a modern, industrial socities, but it wrongheaded to claim to IQ represents general intelligence.

    I’ve found the marked difference in social skills between mean-representative individuals from groups with a lower relative mean score, and individuals of similar IQ, but from a higher-mean group, to be a compelling challenge to what IQ measures. IQ seems to miss verbal virtuosity and ‘common sense’ reasoning. It may also miss impressive visual-spatial abilities that outlier human groups such as the Kalahari bushmen or Australian Aboriginals exhibit.

    I agree that manifest intelligence, as wisdom or achievement, seems to be heavily moderated by emotion. College professors, obviously high in raw IQ-type intelligence, who fail at disinterested scholarship, which is sadly a large portion of academics outside of STEM, almost always are emotionally invested in a ’cause’ or tribal identity of some type. This problem of selective honesty and adhering to narratives is not a new phenomenon, but certain developments in 20th Century philosophy sanctified what were once failings as acceptable conduct in the academy.

    I agree too that while genetics may play a role in human group-level differences, it is important to recognize the powerful influence of socialization. One of my major frustrations is how ‘racist’ has gone from opposition to biological determinism and denial of fair opportunity to individuals, to a cover for culture and religion. It leaves us in the position where structural societal issues are the only ‘acceptable’ targets of criticism. That hampers progress on all fronts in a pluralistic world.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Ok, ok, ok. I got it. My point was that when personality traits and emotional make up that might be conditioned by environment and culture dominate intelligence factors the question of intelligence can be put aside. This is about what Priss has said: "Their emotions outrun their intelligence." This proposition can be adopted as more aligned with the Occam razor. In this case the Occam razor is favoring Africans. Because if it will turn out that there are genetic factors determining lower intelligence of Africans then they are really royally fucked with no hope left. If it is however that environmental and cultural factors determine the emotional make up that outrun their intelligence they have hope. Once they fix their pathological culture and get grip of the runaway emotional makeup their innate intelligence will have a chance to develop and blossom.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. @Okechukwu

    This is unintentionally damning. You’re basically admitting to SSAs being incurious as a whole. Confucian Asians were pretty damn impressed by steam engines, organic chemistry, advanced firearms…because that’s the normal reaction of a person who values civilizational and technological progress.
     
    Africans too were curious about these things, dummy. That's why they went to Europe and the United States to study. My parents came here to study. That's why I'm here. Africans were also very curious about guns. So much so that the colonial powers formed a pact among themselves to keep modern guns out of African hands. They probably had good cause to do this. I mean the Zulus killed 1300 crack British troops with little more than spears.

    We now develop leading-edge consumer technology products; you might even be using one right now.
     
    None of which were developed organically in Korea by Koreans. You're the one reaping the benefits of the work and toil of others. When I said that a mere handful of Black Americans have invented and innovated more modern technology that all of Asia combined, I meant it.

    A black man was very instrumental in inventing the PC you're using to write your Asian supremacist junk (see Mark Dean).

    A black man invented the modern video game console which formed the basis of the Japanese gaming industry (see Jerry Lawson).

    A black man was highly instrumental in developing the cell phone technology we have today and which your Samsung has turned into a billion dollar business (see Henry T. Thompson).

    Going back further and amid withering racism and Jim Crow, black people invented many of the transformative technologies we use today. Going back further still, we even had black people inventing and innovating as slaves. You mentioned steamboats. Well it was a black slave that perfected propeller technology (see Ben Montgomery). So that which you claim Asians were curious about, while accusing blacks of incuriosity, was in part the intellectual output of a black man. Conversely, Asians were free in their own countries. They were not subjected to debilitating and dehumanizing oppression. Yet they produced nothing. They created nothing. They invented nothing.

    I apologize to any decent Asians. But this character needs a cold dose of reality.

    Koreans invented our own alphabet suited for Korean and the first metal moveable-type printing press. We had sophisticated carpentry, luxury-quality cloth-making, fine ceramics, etc. Not much, but we were hardly savages.
     
    Korea was a primitive stone age society before and during the Korean war. I've seen the films. But unlike you, I'm not alleging that they were stupid or inferior. North Korea today is basically a mirror image of South Korea, absent U.S. largess. You were created by the United States and you've been nurtured by the United States. You've been allowed to dump all your products here while at the same time closing your markets to U.S. products. Because of the American protective umbrella, you can divert funds to other purposes that would otherwise go to defense.

    Your entire country is an American fabrication. Virtually everything you have and everything you to is copied or stolen from America. Your K-pop is derivative of musical stylings invented by the black people you hate so much. Not only the music, but the presentation, the dance routines, the attitudes, the idioms -- all reflect African-American aesthetics. So not only are you unable to invent your own tech, you can't even invent your own pop culture.

    As for “all of Asia,” the list of Nobel Prize winners in physics, chemistry, and medicine speaks for itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Asian_Nobel_laureates. The only “African” winners in those fields are European. Ouch
     
    Given that there are billions of Asians on the planet, the relative infinitesimal number of Asian Nobel Prize winners belies your Asian supremacy polemics. The Nobel, by the way, exists within a Northern European cultural matrix. Duh...that's why an overwhelming majority of the winners have been of Northern European extraction. Well now increasingly Africans are in the mix. And there's absolutely nothing to preclude the possibility that Africans will be among future Nobel Prize winners. In fact in light of your moribund performance, it's not inconceivable that Africans will surpass you in the not too distant future.

    Black Americans are an admixture with Europeans, but even then they can’t begin to match the accomplishments listed above.
     
    But if blacks are genetically inferior to whites and Asians, why would admixed blacks be far more intelligent, far more inventive and far more innovative than fully 100% whites and Asians? Umm...that doesn't make any sense. Sorry.

    Like Chisala, you use sophistry and Kangz-style bravado to ignore the elephant in the room.
     
    Well go play with Chanda. Apparently he's far more indulgent of your Asian supremacy gobbledygook. Chanda is an immigrant. Often times immigrants have a tendency to walk on eggshells. Me, I'm an American. We don't play that shit.

    Damn bro, you definitely slay. I’ll jump back into the conversation tomorrow.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. @Okechukwu

    I am surprised that you do not point to the problem of much discussion by the likes of Lynn, Rushton and probably Braun that their data samples are far too small and limited to represent the enormous genetic variety within Africa that contrasts with the narrow out of Africa lineages of the rest of humanity.
     
    Well it’s already a foregone conclusion Lynn, Rushton, Braun et al. are frauds.

    You hit on an interesting point. If human populations are segmentable into intellectually superior and inferior then it’s entirely possible that we will find the smartest people in the world in Africa. Taking HBD theory to its proper conclusion, if we delineate human genes in the minutiae it’s not inconceivable that populations with richer gene pools are endowed with genes and frequencies for intelligence that are absent in other relatively bottlenecked and inbred populations.


    Aren’t Igbo known for being smart (“Jews of Africa” I see is treated as more than metaphorical by some)? And also as having castes?
     
    Yes, the smart Igbo is a stereotype. Of course, Igbos aren’t always smart but they have suffered collective persecution on account of being perceived as smart and “Jew-like.” The Biafran civil war often was framed by northern Muslims in terms of a battle against the Jews. I’m agnostic about the Jewish connection. Some of our cultural practices are eerily but probably coincidentally similar.

    Igbos don’t practice a caste system. Their overriding sensibility is devotion to family — broad, extended families that eventually encompasses all of Igboland and the diaspora. There is no Igbo equivalent of the word “cousin.” Even distant cousins are called brothers and sisters. To specifically identify someone as a cousin requires explication.

    Igbos do venerate education, achievement and success. That’s the closest thing to a caste system we have, with high achievers on top. The competition to get there and to outdo each other, even among siblings, can be vicious. It does promote successful outcomes but it also engenders envy and ill will.


    Perhaps Braun has detected a real connection between the kind of abstract thinking that supports morality in any but the simplest circumstances and IQ.
     
    Morality is a relative and subjective concept. There were slaveholders who considered themselves paragons and virtue and morality. Making pernicious judgments about an entire continent based on superficial interactions and deeply-held biases is in fact immoral. Therefore, ironically, Braun himself is immoral.

    I see that memory may have failed me. I Googled “are there castes in Africa” and found plenty of examples but not, of course, Igbo. It would be interesting to compare Indian and Africsn castes on a number of aspects and dimensions. And to add comparison to class systems.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. @Peter Johnson
    James Watson, co-discoverer of the DNA molecule, said "I am inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really." That sounds like a wise opinion to me.

    That seems like an appeal to authority (although he has no authority there). Why do HBDers like fallacies so much? Post hoc, ergo propter hoc, appeal to authority, some use appeal to emotion, etc.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Two kinds of inferior people:

    Although both are ultimately incapable of true sentience(which requires a soul and divine spark), one type of ape is more competent than the other at imitation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  142. Pat Boyle says:
    @Hu Mi Yu

    (Argentine) locals never even thought of the wheel. S America and Australasia didn’t even have iron.
     
    Wheels are not much use without roads and fairly level terrain. S. America developed more than its share of food crops. I can't imagine what European food was like before they had potatoes and tomatoes. Rice came from China along with many high-tech inventions such as iron, rockets, and gun powder.

    Added to that is, the tech and political systems all developed either in the dry subtropics (fertile crescent) or the Mediterranean.
     
    That is the semitic view of civilization with the Bible being the world's oldest book etc etc. Modern archaeology contradicts this. Comparably old developed societies were located in India and China and probably other places as well.

    The Chinese did not develop gun powder. There is a well defined Gunpowder Revolution that describes when what we call black powder was first used effectively in militarily useful guns. It occurred in France and Germany in the fifteenth century. There were many separate stages to the development of effective gunpowder including corning.

    When gun powder and guns were used in the invasion of Italy by Charles VIII, all existing fortifications were instantly obsolete. Within a few years military architects created a whole new form of polygonal fortification. No high thin wall could withstand a gun. This revolution swept to the east only reaching China much later.

    People who like to think China invented gunpowder have sloppy thought processes. We celebrate an inventor when he has added the final piece that makes his invention useful. We do not attribute an invention to the first one who worked with it. If we did that we would attribute the electric light not to Edison but some early glass blower.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    The idea that only the "classic gun" design would define the gunpowder age doesn't seem consistent with the observation that the Ottoman Empire was using cannons and bombards effectively as siege weapons on a consistent basis as far back as the 1420s; while it didn't make all walls instantly obsolete, it would be hard to argue that the siege of Constantinople didn't impress upon the world that a fundamental shift in warfare had occurred.
    , @utu
    People who like to think China invented gunpowder have sloppy thought processes.

    To acquire facts no thought process is necessary. The fact is that gunpowder was invented in China. Retain this fact and use your though process for something more useful.
    , @res
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Gunpowder_Age
    , @Jason Liu
    All historical evidence shows gunpowder came to Europe from the East. As did gunpowder weapons.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. Pat Boyle says:
    @RaceRealist88
    It's also worth noting that saying cold winter increased intelligence is the post hoc, ergo proper hoc fallacy.

    "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc is a Latin phrase for "after this, therefore, because of this." The term refers to a logical fallacy that because two events occurred in succession, the former event caused the latter event.[1][2]

    In addressing a post hoc, ergo propter hoc argument, it is important to recognise that correlation does not equal causation.
    Magical thinking is a form of post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy, in which superstitions are formed based on seeing patterns in a series of coincidences. For example, "these are my lucky trousers. Sometimes good things happen to me when I wear them."
     
    Here is the form of the argument:

    "Form of the argument[edit]
    P1: X happened before Y.
    P2: (unstated) Y was caused by something (that happened before Y).
    C1: Therefore, X caused Y."
     
    It's a pretty huge fallacy. Sure it's a fancy way of saying 'correlation doesn't equal causation", but, as you can see, the line of reasoning is logically fallacious.

    You are patronizing the readership. Most of us took Latin in school and many of us took formal logic.

    You have not caught anyone in a terrible embarrassing error because there is “the arrow of time.” Causes do indeed precede effects. So all a putative causes will first of all need to precede its observed effect. Things that go backwards in time are only in Science Fiction and some parts of Theoretical Physics that I don’t understand.

    The fallacy part is when you assume that you have proven causality when you merely demonstrate precedence. No one is doing that here.

    The ‘cold winter makes intelligence’ hypothesis is just that – a hypothesis, and one that I think is likely wrong. It seems simplistic and wrong to me but it isn’t a fallacy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88

    You are patronizing the readership. Most of us took Latin in school and many of us took formal logic.
     
    Who is "many of us" and how do you know that? The comment was for Santoculto, who I'm 99 percent sure didn't know that fallacy.

    The fallacy part is when you assume that you have proven causality when you merely demonstrate precedence. No one is doing that here.
     
    Santoculto wrote:

    humans were exposed to cold regions and became smarter

    So yes, someone did do that. "X happened before Y" (cold winter happened before increase in intelligence)".


    The ‘cold winter makes intelligence’ hypothesis is just that – a hypothesis, and one that I think is likely wrong. It seems simplistic and wrong to me but it isn’t a fallacy.
     
    Yea it kinda is.

    "P1: X happened before Y.
    P2: (unstated) Y was caused by something (that happened before Y).
    C1: Therefore, X caused Y"

    P1: Cold winter happened before increase in IQ/intelligence
    P2: IQ/intelligence increases were caused by something (that happened before the intelligence increase)
    C1: Therefore, cold winters caused higher IQ/intelligence

    I agree that CWT is wrong, and if you say that X caused Y, that's a fallacy.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. utu says:
    @Santoculto
    Relative is relative...

    Because some people considered themselves morally correct even when they weren't it's doesn't mean they were correct. If morality is relative and subjective why white guilt?? Why blame the whitey by enslavement if morality is relative and subjective, I mean, no have objective criteria???

    "Is in FACT IMMORAL"

    ...

    It's not relative or subjective??

    Very good catch!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    He is embarrassingly self contradictory but it's extremely common, indeed part of intelligence challenge is to fight against self contradictions all the time.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. @Pat Boyle
    The Chinese did not develop gun powder. There is a well defined Gunpowder Revolution that describes when what we call black powder was first used effectively in militarily useful guns. It occurred in France and Germany in the fifteenth century. There were many separate stages to the development of effective gunpowder including corning.

    When gun powder and guns were used in the invasion of Italy by Charles VIII, all existing fortifications were instantly obsolete. Within a few years military architects created a whole new form of polygonal fortification. No high thin wall could withstand a gun. This revolution swept to the east only reaching China much later.

    People who like to think China invented gunpowder have sloppy thought processes. We celebrate an inventor when he has added the final piece that makes his invention useful. We do not attribute an invention to the first one who worked with it. If we did that we would attribute the electric light not to Edison but some early glass blower.

    The idea that only the “classic gun” design would define the gunpowder age doesn’t seem consistent with the observation that the Ottoman Empire was using cannons and bombards effectively as siege weapons on a consistent basis as far back as the 1420s; while it didn’t make all walls instantly obsolete, it would be hard to argue that the siege of Constantinople didn’t impress upon the world that a fundamental shift in warfare had occurred.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pat Boyle
    I don't see how your remarks are in opposition to mine. Perhaps I was unclear. Constantinople and Harfluer were sieges in the fifteenth century where guns and gunpowder played a crucial part. That was my point. The Chinese had used their resources of saltpeter when mixed with honey to create a series of fireworks. This was quite early but it did not lead directly to the guns and gunpowder that knocked down fortress walls or that led to hand cannons and small arms.

    Gunpowder was all over Europe in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries but it wasn't of much use because it had poor properties for a battlefield weapon. Mix up a batch of homemade black powder and carry it around all day in your powder horn and when you go to use it will have separated again and be useless.

    True gunpowder is not just a simple mixture. It was a manufactured product made in royally authorized factories. The state kept tight control over the manufacturing of real (corned) gunpowder. Part of the process is to make cakes and then grind them up to the proper consistency for particular kinds of gunpowder. If you are careless in grinding - boom.

    Military historians generally credit the Italian campaign of Charles VIII as ending the high walls style of fortifications which had been the standard means of defending against the enemy since Jericho. This campaign signaled the start of the Gunpowder Era. You can trace when gunpowder came to a region by their style of walls. Note that The Great Wall of China while begun in Chin Zeaundi's rein before Christ, it was still being built until the seventeenth century (the part Nixon and the tourists visit). No major new fortifications were built that way in Europe so late.

    So you might say that The Great Wall of China proves that China did not invent gunpowder. (Maybe that's a bit to strong a statement).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. utu says:
    @Okechukwu

    This is unintentionally damning. You’re basically admitting to SSAs being incurious as a whole. Confucian Asians were pretty damn impressed by steam engines, organic chemistry, advanced firearms…because that’s the normal reaction of a person who values civilizational and technological progress.
     
    Africans too were curious about these things, dummy. That's why they went to Europe and the United States to study. My parents came here to study. That's why I'm here. Africans were also very curious about guns. So much so that the colonial powers formed a pact among themselves to keep modern guns out of African hands. They probably had good cause to do this. I mean the Zulus killed 1300 crack British troops with little more than spears.

    We now develop leading-edge consumer technology products; you might even be using one right now.
     
    None of which were developed organically in Korea by Koreans. You're the one reaping the benefits of the work and toil of others. When I said that a mere handful of Black Americans have invented and innovated more modern technology that all of Asia combined, I meant it.

    A black man was very instrumental in inventing the PC you're using to write your Asian supremacist junk (see Mark Dean).

    A black man invented the modern video game console which formed the basis of the Japanese gaming industry (see Jerry Lawson).

    A black man was highly instrumental in developing the cell phone technology we have today and which your Samsung has turned into a billion dollar business (see Henry T. Thompson).

    Going back further and amid withering racism and Jim Crow, black people invented many of the transformative technologies we use today. Going back further still, we even had black people inventing and innovating as slaves. You mentioned steamboats. Well it was a black slave that perfected propeller technology (see Ben Montgomery). So that which you claim Asians were curious about, while accusing blacks of incuriosity, was in part the intellectual output of a black man. Conversely, Asians were free in their own countries. They were not subjected to debilitating and dehumanizing oppression. Yet they produced nothing. They created nothing. They invented nothing.

    I apologize to any decent Asians. But this character needs a cold dose of reality.

    Koreans invented our own alphabet suited for Korean and the first metal moveable-type printing press. We had sophisticated carpentry, luxury-quality cloth-making, fine ceramics, etc. Not much, but we were hardly savages.
     
    Korea was a primitive stone age society before and during the Korean war. I've seen the films. But unlike you, I'm not alleging that they were stupid or inferior. North Korea today is basically a mirror image of South Korea, absent U.S. largess. You were created by the United States and you've been nurtured by the United States. You've been allowed to dump all your products here while at the same time closing your markets to U.S. products. Because of the American protective umbrella, you can divert funds to other purposes that would otherwise go to defense.

    Your entire country is an American fabrication. Virtually everything you have and everything you to is copied or stolen from America. Your K-pop is derivative of musical stylings invented by the black people you hate so much. Not only the music, but the presentation, the dance routines, the attitudes, the idioms -- all reflect African-American aesthetics. So not only are you unable to invent your own tech, you can't even invent your own pop culture.

    As for “all of Asia,” the list of Nobel Prize winners in physics, chemistry, and medicine speaks for itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Asian_Nobel_laureates. The only “African” winners in those fields are European. Ouch
     
    Given that there are billions of Asians on the planet, the relative infinitesimal number of Asian Nobel Prize winners belies your Asian supremacy polemics. The Nobel, by the way, exists within a Northern European cultural matrix. Duh...that's why an overwhelming majority of the winners have been of Northern European extraction. Well now increasingly Africans are in the mix. And there's absolutely nothing to preclude the possibility that Africans will be among future Nobel Prize winners. In fact in light of your moribund performance, it's not inconceivable that Africans will surpass you in the not too distant future.

    Black Americans are an admixture with Europeans, but even then they can’t begin to match the accomplishments listed above.
     
    But if blacks are genetically inferior to whites and Asians, why would admixed blacks be far more intelligent, far more inventive and far more innovative than fully 100% whites and Asians? Umm...that doesn't make any sense. Sorry.

    Like Chisala, you use sophistry and Kangz-style bravado to ignore the elephant in the room.
     
    Well go play with Chanda. Apparently he's far more indulgent of your Asian supremacy gobbledygook. Chanda is an immigrant. Often times immigrants have a tendency to walk on eggshells. Me, I'm an American. We don't play that shit.

    Africans too were curious about these things, dummy. That’s why they went to Europe and the United States to study. My parents came here to study. That’s why I’m here.

    Why did they abandon you here in America? Because I presume once your parents learned how to build the steam engine or whatever they got so curious about they went back to Nigeria to repay with their newly acquired knowledge the Nigerian government that funded their studies in America with money it got probably from UN. What Nigeria or any African country gets from your sorry ass staying in America? How are you helping to turn African into the next South Korea and contributing to your great vision of flooding the world with African Nobel prizes? In the meantime you should moderate your badmouthing of Asians because your future may depend on them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    @Okechukwo. I have trouble fathoming utu also....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. utu says:
    @Pat Boyle
    The Chinese did not develop gun powder. There is a well defined Gunpowder Revolution that describes when what we call black powder was first used effectively in militarily useful guns. It occurred in France and Germany in the fifteenth century. There were many separate stages to the development of effective gunpowder including corning.

    When gun powder and guns were used in the invasion of Italy by Charles VIII, all existing fortifications were instantly obsolete. Within a few years military architects created a whole new form of polygonal fortification. No high thin wall could withstand a gun. This revolution swept to the east only reaching China much later.

    People who like to think China invented gunpowder have sloppy thought processes. We celebrate an inventor when he has added the final piece that makes his invention useful. We do not attribute an invention to the first one who worked with it. If we did that we would attribute the electric light not to Edison but some early glass blower.

    People who like to think China invented gunpowder have sloppy thought processes.

    To acquire facts no thought process is necessary. The fact is that gunpowder was invented in China. Retain this fact and use your though process for something more useful.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pat Boyle
    You have a funny notion of what constitutes a 'fact'. The idea that the Chinese invented gunpowder is popular in the popular press but not in the serious literature. Pleas read some military history. And please consider other 'inventions'. You are not just wrong - you are impolite.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. utu says:
    @K-Drama Kumiho
    Utu, I take the position that IQ measures something useful, arguably the skill-set conducive to success in a modern, industrial socities, but it wrongheaded to claim to IQ represents general intelligence.

    I've found the marked difference in social skills between mean-representative individuals from groups with a lower relative mean score, and individuals of similar IQ, but from a higher-mean group, to be a compelling challenge to what IQ measures. IQ seems to miss verbal virtuosity and 'common sense' reasoning. It may also miss impressive visual-spatial abilities that outlier human groups such as the Kalahari bushmen or Australian Aboriginals exhibit.

    I agree that manifest intelligence, as wisdom or achievement, seems to be heavily moderated by emotion. College professors, obviously high in raw IQ-type intelligence, who fail at disinterested scholarship, which is sadly a large portion of academics outside of STEM, almost always are emotionally invested in a 'cause' or tribal identity of some type. This problem of selective honesty and adhering to narratives is not a new phenomenon, but certain developments in 20th Century philosophy sanctified what were once failings as acceptable conduct in the academy.

    I agree too that while genetics may play a role in human group-level differences, it is important to recognize the powerful influence of socialization. One of my major frustrations is how 'racist' has gone from opposition to biological determinism and denial of fair opportunity to individuals, to a cover for culture and religion. It leaves us in the position where structural societal issues are the only 'acceptable' targets of criticism. That hampers progress on all fronts in a pluralistic world.

    Ok, ok, ok. I got it. My point was that when personality traits and emotional make up that might be conditioned by environment and culture dominate intelligence factors the question of intelligence can be put aside. This is about what Priss has said: “Their emotions outrun their intelligence.” This proposition can be adopted as more aligned with the Occam razor. In this case the Occam razor is favoring Africans. Because if it will turn out that there are genetic factors determining lower intelligence of Africans then they are really royally fucked with no hope left. If it is however that environmental and cultural factors determine the emotional make up that outrun their intelligence they have hope. Once they fix their pathological culture and get grip of the runaway emotional makeup their innate intelligence will have a chance to develop and blossom.

    Read More
    • Replies: @K-Drama Kumiho
    Regarding the thesis that emotionality hampers the exercise of reason, and thus fails to allow genetic intelligence potential to be realized, what if relative emotional control itself is strongly genetically regulated?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. res says:
    @Pat Boyle
    The Chinese did not develop gun powder. There is a well defined Gunpowder Revolution that describes when what we call black powder was first used effectively in militarily useful guns. It occurred in France and Germany in the fifteenth century. There were many separate stages to the development of effective gunpowder including corning.

    When gun powder and guns were used in the invasion of Italy by Charles VIII, all existing fortifications were instantly obsolete. Within a few years military architects created a whole new form of polygonal fortification. No high thin wall could withstand a gun. This revolution swept to the east only reaching China much later.

    People who like to think China invented gunpowder have sloppy thought processes. We celebrate an inventor when he has added the final piece that makes his invention useful. We do not attribute an invention to the first one who worked with it. If we did that we would attribute the electric light not to Edison but some early glass blower.
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. @Okechukwu

    This is unintentionally damning. You’re basically admitting to SSAs being incurious as a whole. Confucian Asians were pretty damn impressed by steam engines, organic chemistry, advanced firearms…because that’s the normal reaction of a person who values civilizational and technological progress.
     
    Africans too were curious about these things, dummy. That's why they went to Europe and the United States to study. My parents came here to study. That's why I'm here. Africans were also very curious about guns. So much so that the colonial powers formed a pact among themselves to keep modern guns out of African hands. They probably had good cause to do this. I mean the Zulus killed 1300 crack British troops with little more than spears.

    We now develop leading-edge consumer technology products; you might even be using one right now.
     
    None of which were developed organically in Korea by Koreans. You're the one reaping the benefits of the work and toil of others. When I said that a mere handful of Black Americans have invented and innovated more modern technology that all of Asia combined, I meant it.

    A black man was very instrumental in inventing the PC you're using to write your Asian supremacist junk (see Mark Dean).

    A black man invented the modern video game console which formed the basis of the Japanese gaming industry (see Jerry Lawson).

    A black man was highly instrumental in developing the cell phone technology we have today and which your Samsung has turned into a billion dollar business (see Henry T. Thompson).

    Going back further and amid withering racism and Jim Crow, black people invented many of the transformative technologies we use today. Going back further still, we even had black people inventing and innovating as slaves. You mentioned steamboats. Well it was a black slave that perfected propeller technology (see Ben Montgomery). So that which you claim Asians were curious about, while accusing blacks of incuriosity, was in part the intellectual output of a black man. Conversely, Asians were free in their own countries. They were not subjected to debilitating and dehumanizing oppression. Yet they produced nothing. They created nothing. They invented nothing.

    I apologize to any decent Asians. But this character needs a cold dose of reality.

    Koreans invented our own alphabet suited for Korean and the first metal moveable-type printing press. We had sophisticated carpentry, luxury-quality cloth-making, fine ceramics, etc. Not much, but we were hardly savages.
     
    Korea was a primitive stone age society before and during the Korean war. I've seen the films. But unlike you, I'm not alleging that they were stupid or inferior. North Korea today is basically a mirror image of South Korea, absent U.S. largess. You were created by the United States and you've been nurtured by the United States. You've been allowed to dump all your products here while at the same time closing your markets to U.S. products. Because of the American protective umbrella, you can divert funds to other purposes that would otherwise go to defense.

    Your entire country is an American fabrication. Virtually everything you have and everything you to is copied or stolen from America. Your K-pop is derivative of musical stylings invented by the black people you hate so much. Not only the music, but the presentation, the dance routines, the attitudes, the idioms -- all reflect African-American aesthetics. So not only are you unable to invent your own tech, you can't even invent your own pop culture.

    As for “all of Asia,” the list of Nobel Prize winners in physics, chemistry, and medicine speaks for itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Asian_Nobel_laureates. The only “African” winners in those fields are European. Ouch
     
    Given that there are billions of Asians on the planet, the relative infinitesimal number of Asian Nobel Prize winners belies your Asian supremacy polemics. The Nobel, by the way, exists within a Northern European cultural matrix. Duh...that's why an overwhelming majority of the winners have been of Northern European extraction. Well now increasingly Africans are in the mix. And there's absolutely nothing to preclude the possibility that Africans will be among future Nobel Prize winners. In fact in light of your moribund performance, it's not inconceivable that Africans will surpass you in the not too distant future.

    Black Americans are an admixture with Europeans, but even then they can’t begin to match the accomplishments listed above.
     
    But if blacks are genetically inferior to whites and Asians, why would admixed blacks be far more intelligent, far more inventive and far more innovative than fully 100% whites and Asians? Umm...that doesn't make any sense. Sorry.

    Like Chisala, you use sophistry and Kangz-style bravado to ignore the elephant in the room.
     
    Well go play with Chanda. Apparently he's far more indulgent of your Asian supremacy gobbledygook. Chanda is an immigrant. Often times immigrants have a tendency to walk on eggshells. Me, I'm an American. We don't play that shit.

    Okechukwu, the Once and Future Kang, writes:

    Korea was a primitive stone age society before and during the Korean war.

    “Stone Age” is a concept with an actual anthropological meaning. Koreans had been working metal for over two thousand years, so we were not “stone age” by definition. The pettiness and desperation of your insult speaks for itself. This outburst puts the rest of your gratuitous anti-Korean remarks in perspective.

    Conversely, Asians were free in their own countries. They were not subjected to debilitating and dehumanizing oppression. Yet they produced nothing. They created nothing. They invented nothing.

    Apparently you need pointed out to you that history did not just begin when Europeans began to exert an influence in Subsahran Africa.

    Your statement about Asian history shows laughable ignorance of European colonialism and influence in Asia, as well as gross ignorance of devastating intra-Asian conflict.

    And by “created nothing” and “invented nothing” you mean aside from gunpowder, paper, the compass, the mechanical clock, smelting, silk production, various agricultural innovations, and on and on.

    When I said that a mere handful of Black Americans have invented and innovated more modern technology that all of Asia combined, I meant it.

    Well,I posted links with dozens of Asian inventions, discoveries, and Nobel laureates, plus a general measure of per capita scientific output via peer-reviewed publications. You named four African-Americans.

    None of which were developed organically in Korea by Koreans. You’re the one reaping the benefits of the work and toil of others.

    Wow, talk about a shameless double-standard. Your African-Americans are given full, undivided credit by you, despite working in an overwhelmingly white context, but Koreans get no credit for our contributions. Could you look any more bitter and desperate?

    …why would admixed blacks be far more intelligent, far more inventive and far more innovative than fully 100% whites and Asians?

    Your very question just shows you don’t understand how group averages work versus the status of any given individual, nor grasp how admixture could impact genetically-regulated behavior.

    It’s not worth engaging you further. You seem to exemplify the “We wuz Kangz” mentality.

    In fact in light of your moribund performance, it’s not inconceivable that Africans will surpass you in the not too distant future.

    Q.E.D.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh

    It’s not worth engaging you further. You seem to exemplify the “We wuz Kangz” mentality.

     

    I don't think that there is anything necessarily wrong with a Kangz mentality, so as long as it is actually useful for future growth. Omens look poor at the moment, though. Given the option for future selection for more intelligent offspring, for example, would our guest even pursue such a method?
    , @Okechukwu

    Okechukwu, the Once and Future Kang, writes:
     
    You're the one exhibiting a kang mentality. You're the one emotionally overwrought because I am loathe to endorse your hilariously misplaced superiority complex. You seem to be pleading for affirmation in hopes of ameliorating personal failings. People of your ilk are actually an interesting psychological study. It's a psychosis wrapped up in low self-esteem, perhaps post-traumatic stress of some kind, or perhaps unrealized ambition which ultimately segues into scapegoating.

    “Stone Age” is a concept with an actual anthropological meaning. Koreans had been working metal for over two thousand years, so we were not “stone age” by definition.
     
    Yeah, I realize that Koreans weren't literally a Neolithic people. Of course stone age in this context was a figure of speech.

    The pettiness and desperation of your insult speaks for itself. This outburst puts the rest of your gratuitous anti-Korean remarks in perspective.
     
    But my posts are defensive and reactive. You're the initiating offender to whom I'm responding. I did apologize to all decent Asians prior to ripping you to shreds.

    Apparently you need pointed out to you that history did not just begin when Europeans began to exert an influence in Subsahran Africa.
     
    No I don't. Remember, I wrote the following:

    Prior to that time Africans did engage and defeat European armies and settlers. Europeans were confined to small coastal enclaves and functioned as vassals to African kings. Europeans engaged in trade with Africans on equal terms because they couldn’t take anything by force, including slaves. They tried to raid African villages for slaves and were roundly defeated. Subsequent to that they made treaties and paid for the slaves.

    Your statement about Asian history shows laughable ignorance of European colonialism and influence in Asia, as well as gross ignorance of devastating intra-Asian conflict.
     
    I don’t suppose you have the perspicacity to appreciate how frightfully hypocritical you are. Doesn't your ridiculous ideology ordinarily hold that colonialism was a force that registered somewhere between benign and beneficent, at least with reference to Africa? So now it would appear that colonialism frustrated national development in Asia but not in Africa. Is that correct? You intend to extenuate Asian failure as by-products of colonialism and conflict?

    Well,I posted links with dozens of Asian inventions, discoveries, and Nobel laureates, plus a general measure of per capita scientific output via peer-reviewed publications. You named four African-Americans.
     
    Those four African-Americans innovated and invented more modern technology than all of Asia combined. I could name a hell of a lot more than four. But four is all that is required.

    Wow, talk about a shameless double-standard. Your African-Americans are given full, undivided credit by you, despite working in an overwhelmingly white context, but Koreans get no credit for our contributions. Could you look any more bitter and desperate?
     
    African-American culture IS American culture. It's impossible to disentangle one from the other. Which brings to mind, should we really ask people who invented Jazz, Rock & Roll, Soul, Blues, Hip-Hop, Rap, etc. to take a back seat to Koreans or Chinese, or whomever, in terms of intellectual prowess? I think not. I think the ones that have to copy their stuff are the inferior ones.

    Your very question just shows you don’t understand how group averages work versus the status of any given individual, nor grasp how admixture could impact genetically-regulated behavior.
     
    These are silly, rehashed, mumbo-jumbo talking points. First of all, you don't have any inkling of any averages. No global, large sample size, culturally neutral or culturally inclusive survey of global intelligence has ever been done. To legitimately answer these questions you'd have to raise healthy children of different races on an island somewhere under proper scientific controls. Expose them to the same culture, education, diet, etc. Then you'll have your answer and you won't like that answer. But beyond the disqualifying ethical questions there's the simple fact that it would be an unmitigated waste of time. Because to assess someone's intelligence by virtue of outward phenotype requires a special kind of stupid. In other words, unless you're profoundly stupid you should know, almost instinctively, that race and intelligence are utterly unconnected.

    Nature, by the way, doesn’t do averages. Either an organism has something or it doesn’t. That’s why there isn’t a single chimpanzee that can do algebra or operate an automobile.

    I'm not saying anything to you that is unusual or extraordinary. The Internet bubbles and echo-chambers you frequent tend to enforce a false sense of reality. I'm the reality. I'm what you'll find if you ever take your sorry ass to a brick and mortar scientific conference. Do so in your own South Korea, where there are very few black people. Let’s see you explain, demonstrate and quantify how blacks are supposedly inferior to whites and Asians. In fact link me to any credible South Korean scientist, geneticist or academician who shares your views. Good luck. You'll need it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. @Pat Boyle
    You are patronizing the readership. Most of us took Latin in school and many of us took formal logic.

    You have not caught anyone in a terrible embarrassing error because there is "the arrow of time." Causes do indeed precede effects. So all a putative causes will first of all need to precede its observed effect. Things that go backwards in time are only in Science Fiction and some parts of Theoretical Physics that I don't understand.

    The fallacy part is when you assume that you have proven causality when you merely demonstrate precedence. No one is doing that here.

    The 'cold winter makes intelligence' hypothesis is just that - a hypothesis, and one that I think is likely wrong. It seems simplistic and wrong to me but it isn't a fallacy.

    You are patronizing the readership. Most of us took Latin in school and many of us took formal logic.

    Who is “many of us” and how do you know that? The comment was for Santoculto, who I’m 99 percent sure didn’t know that fallacy.

    The fallacy part is when you assume that you have proven causality when you merely demonstrate precedence. No one is doing that here.

    Santoculto wrote:

    humans were exposed to cold regions and became smarter

    So yes, someone did do that. “X happened before Y” (cold winter happened before increase in intelligence)”.

    The ‘cold winter makes intelligence’ hypothesis is just that – a hypothesis, and one that I think is likely wrong. It seems simplistic and wrong to me but it isn’t a fallacy.

    Yea it kinda is.

    “P1: X happened before Y.
    P2: (unstated) Y was caused by something (that happened before Y).
    C1: Therefore, X caused Y”

    P1: Cold winter happened before increase in IQ/intelligence
    P2: IQ/intelligence increases were caused by something (that happened before the intelligence increase)
    C1: Therefore, cold winters caused higher IQ/intelligence

    I agree that CWT is wrong, and if you say that X caused Y, that’s a fallacy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    I don't said this.. What fallacy?? An?
    , @Santoculto

    P1: Cold winter happened before increase in IQ/intelligence
     
    an**

    it's not the opposite* ;)

    this sentence don't make sense.
    , @Pat Boyle
    Santoculto was simply referring to a common theory why the peoples who left Africa and went north also became smart. The theory may be wrong of course but it isn't a logical fallacy. He is probably in the majority. Many anthropologists believe the same.

    You're right. Maybe Latin is less well understood by the readership than I presumed. But the intelligence of the readership of this blog is very high. I'm always learning something new here.

    I remember quoting - Post quo, ergo propter quo - to a sergeant who was teaching a class in Basic Training. I had trouble in the Army.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. @K-Drama Kumiho
    Okechukwu, the Once and Future Kang, writes:

    Korea was a primitive stone age society before and during the Korean war.
     
    "Stone Age" is a concept with an actual anthropological meaning. Koreans had been working metal for over two thousand years, so we were not "stone age" by definition. The pettiness and desperation of your insult speaks for itself. This outburst puts the rest of your gratuitous anti-Korean remarks in perspective.

    Conversely, Asians were free in their own countries. They were not subjected to debilitating and dehumanizing oppression. Yet they produced nothing. They created nothing. They invented nothing.
     
    Apparently you need pointed out to you that history did not just begin when Europeans began to exert an influence in Subsahran Africa.

    Your statement about Asian history shows laughable ignorance of European colonialism and influence in Asia, as well as gross ignorance of devastating intra-Asian conflict.

    And by "created nothing" and "invented nothing" you mean aside from gunpowder, paper, the compass, the mechanical clock, smelting, silk production, various agricultural innovations, and on and on.


    When I said that a mere handful of Black Americans have invented and innovated more modern technology that all of Asia combined, I meant it.
     
    Well,I posted links with dozens of Asian inventions, discoveries, and Nobel laureates, plus a general measure of per capita scientific output via peer-reviewed publications. You named four African-Americans.

    None of which were developed organically in Korea by Koreans. You’re the one reaping the benefits of the work and toil of others.
     
    Wow, talk about a shameless double-standard. Your African-Americans are given full, undivided credit by you, despite working in an overwhelmingly white context, but Koreans get no credit for our contributions. Could you look any more bitter and desperate?

    …why would admixed blacks be far more intelligent, far more inventive and far more innovative than fully 100% whites and Asians?
     
    Your very question just shows you don't understand how group averages work versus the status of any given individual, nor grasp how admixture could impact genetically-regulated behavior.

    It's not worth engaging you further. You seem to exemplify the "We wuz Kangz" mentality.


    In fact in light of your moribund performance, it’s not inconceivable that Africans will surpass you in the not too distant future.
     
    Q.E.D.

    It’s not worth engaging you further. You seem to exemplify the “We wuz Kangz” mentality.

    I don’t think that there is anything necessarily wrong with a Kangz mentality, so as long as it is actually useful for future growth. Omens look poor at the moment, though. Given the option for future selection for more intelligent offspring, for example, would our guest even pursue such a method?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    ''I don’t think that there is anything necessarily wrong with a Kangz mentality''

    Everything wrong, super self confidence destroy nations.
    , @utu

    I don’t think that there is anything necessarily wrong with a Kangz mentality, so as long as it is actually useful for future growth.
     
    Interesting point. The confidence bordering on chutzpah must come from some inner strength. And to maintain it it must be fertilized with occasional successes. A military success will do. Or well planned and well executed genocide preferably of white people will do. But they are unlikely. On the other had an emulation of a quiet success of Koreans or Taiwanese is very unlikely. This requires possession of committed elites that will resist corruption from outside who will have the welfare of their society at heart. It is very hard to find it in Africa. I haven't seen a leader in Africa with these qualities yet. An there is a culture. What parts of African culture is suitable for building a modern society that depends on discipline, perseverance, honesty and cooperation?
    , @K-Drama Kumiho

    I don’t think that there is anything necessarily wrong with a Kangz mentality, so as long as it is actually useful for future growth.
     
    If it were just a typical founding myth, I would not bother mock it, despite demonstrably ahistorical elements. It's the broader mentality that accompanies the Kangz rhetoric, which profoundly disturbs me.

    It's that notion, exemplified by the worldview of Ta-Nehisi Coates, that blacks are held down solely by external forces, mostly "people who believe they are white." This leads to rejection of personal agency, a problem which those black intellectuals with the courage to take on Coates have pretty much uniformly highlighted. It extends more broadly to a rejection of the culturally-cultivated virtues that have allowed other groups to better their condition. Just look at the excuses and evasions that Okechukwu resorts to.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. @Daniel Chieh

    It’s not worth engaging you further. You seem to exemplify the “We wuz Kangz” mentality.

     

    I don't think that there is anything necessarily wrong with a Kangz mentality, so as long as it is actually useful for future growth. Omens look poor at the moment, though. Given the option for future selection for more intelligent offspring, for example, would our guest even pursue such a method?

    ”I don’t think that there is anything necessarily wrong with a Kangz mentality”

    Everything wrong, super self confidence destroy nations.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. utu says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    It’s not worth engaging you further. You seem to exemplify the “We wuz Kangz” mentality.

     

    I don't think that there is anything necessarily wrong with a Kangz mentality, so as long as it is actually useful for future growth. Omens look poor at the moment, though. Given the option for future selection for more intelligent offspring, for example, would our guest even pursue such a method?

    I don’t think that there is anything necessarily wrong with a Kangz mentality, so as long as it is actually useful for future growth.

    Interesting point. The confidence bordering on chutzpah must come from some inner strength. And to maintain it it must be fertilized with occasional successes. A military success will do. Or well planned and well executed genocide preferably of white people will do. But they are unlikely. On the other had an emulation of a quiet success of Koreans or Taiwanese is very unlikely. This requires possession of committed elites that will resist corruption from outside who will have the welfare of their society at heart. It is very hard to find it in Africa. I haven’t seen a leader in Africa with these qualities yet. An there is a culture. What parts of African culture is suitable for building a modern society that depends on discipline, perseverance, honesty and cooperation?

    Read More
    • Replies: @szopen
    AFAIK Black Americans have far more self-esteem than whites. The "we wuz kangs" mentality may have helped them initially, but it seems that not during last 4 decades.

    (Yeah, I know some are arguing that the black-white gap is narrowing still, but the problem is checking whether the "blacks" and "whites" refers to the same population as before).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. @utu
    Ok, ok, ok. I got it. My point was that when personality traits and emotional make up that might be conditioned by environment and culture dominate intelligence factors the question of intelligence can be put aside. This is about what Priss has said: "Their emotions outrun their intelligence." This proposition can be adopted as more aligned with the Occam razor. In this case the Occam razor is favoring Africans. Because if it will turn out that there are genetic factors determining lower intelligence of Africans then they are really royally fucked with no hope left. If it is however that environmental and cultural factors determine the emotional make up that outrun their intelligence they have hope. Once they fix their pathological culture and get grip of the runaway emotional makeup their innate intelligence will have a chance to develop and blossom.

    Regarding the thesis that emotionality hampers the exercise of reason, and thus fails to allow genetic intelligence potential to be realized, what if relative emotional control itself is strongly genetically regulated?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. @utu
    Africans too were curious about these things, dummy. That’s why they went to Europe and the United States to study. My parents came here to study. That’s why I’m here.

    Why did they abandon you here in America? Because I presume once your parents learned how to build the steam engine or whatever they got so curious about they went back to Nigeria to repay with their newly acquired knowledge the Nigerian government that funded their studies in America with money it got probably from UN. What Nigeria or any African country gets from your sorry ass staying in America? How are you helping to turn African into the next South Korea and contributing to your great vision of flooding the world with African Nobel prizes? In the meantime you should moderate your badmouthing of Asians because your future may depend on them.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzyaa2tfwBk

    @Okechukwo. I have trouble fathoming utu also….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. @Daniel Chieh

    It’s not worth engaging you further. You seem to exemplify the “We wuz Kangz” mentality.

     

    I don't think that there is anything necessarily wrong with a Kangz mentality, so as long as it is actually useful for future growth. Omens look poor at the moment, though. Given the option for future selection for more intelligent offspring, for example, would our guest even pursue such a method?

    I don’t think that there is anything necessarily wrong with a Kangz mentality, so as long as it is actually useful for future growth.

    If it were just a typical founding myth, I would not bother mock it, despite demonstrably ahistorical elements. It’s the broader mentality that accompanies the Kangz rhetoric, which profoundly disturbs me.

    It’s that notion, exemplified by the worldview of Ta-Nehisi Coates, that blacks are held down solely by external forces, mostly “people who believe they are white.” This leads to rejection of personal agency, a problem which those black intellectuals with the courage to take on Coates have pretty much uniformly highlighted. It extends more broadly to a rejection of the culturally-cultivated virtues that have allowed other groups to better their condition. Just look at the excuses and evasions that Okechukwu resorts to.

    Read More
    • Replies: @szopen
    I'd argue that _if_ the hereditarian hypothesis is wrong, _then_ one could argue that it's not racism or discrimination which holds blacks down, but rather the toxic culture of "we are victims".

    Of course, the Jensen's criticism of "x factor" would apply also here (i.e. that this culture would have to made, on average, the same debilitating effect on all American blacks, no matter of their SES etc).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. szopen says:
    @utu

    I don’t think that there is anything necessarily wrong with a Kangz mentality, so as long as it is actually useful for future growth.
     
    Interesting point. The confidence bordering on chutzpah must come from some inner strength. And to maintain it it must be fertilized with occasional successes. A military success will do. Or well planned and well executed genocide preferably of white people will do. But they are unlikely. On the other had an emulation of a quiet success of Koreans or Taiwanese is very unlikely. This requires possession of committed elites that will resist corruption from outside who will have the welfare of their society at heart. It is very hard to find it in Africa. I haven't seen a leader in Africa with these qualities yet. An there is a culture. What parts of African culture is suitable for building a modern society that depends on discipline, perseverance, honesty and cooperation?

    AFAIK Black Americans have far more self-esteem than whites. The “we wuz kangs” mentality may have helped them initially, but it seems that not during last 4 decades.

    (Yeah, I know some are arguing that the black-white gap is narrowing still, but the problem is checking whether the “blacks” and “whites” refers to the same population as before).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. szopen says:
    @K-Drama Kumiho

    I don’t think that there is anything necessarily wrong with a Kangz mentality, so as long as it is actually useful for future growth.
     
    If it were just a typical founding myth, I would not bother mock it, despite demonstrably ahistorical elements. It's the broader mentality that accompanies the Kangz rhetoric, which profoundly disturbs me.

    It's that notion, exemplified by the worldview of Ta-Nehisi Coates, that blacks are held down solely by external forces, mostly "people who believe they are white." This leads to rejection of personal agency, a problem which those black intellectuals with the courage to take on Coates have pretty much uniformly highlighted. It extends more broadly to a rejection of the culturally-cultivated virtues that have allowed other groups to better their condition. Just look at the excuses and evasions that Okechukwu resorts to.

    I’d argue that _if_ the hereditarian hypothesis is wrong, _then_ one could argue that it’s not racism or discrimination which holds blacks down, but rather the toxic culture of “we are victims”.

    Of course, the Jensen’s criticism of “x factor” would apply also here (i.e. that this culture would have to made, on average, the same debilitating effect on all American blacks, no matter of their SES etc).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. Jason Liu says:
    @Okechukwu

    This is unintentionally damning. You’re basically admitting to SSAs being incurious as a whole. Confucian Asians were pretty damn impressed by steam engines, organic chemistry, advanced firearms…because that’s the normal reaction of a person who values civilizational and technological progress.
     
    Africans too were curious about these things, dummy. That's why they went to Europe and the United States to study. My parents came here to study. That's why I'm here. Africans were also very curious about guns. So much so that the colonial powers formed a pact among themselves to keep modern guns out of African hands. They probably had good cause to do this. I mean the Zulus killed 1300 crack British troops with little more than spears.

    We now develop leading-edge consumer technology products; you might even be using one right now.
     
    None of which were developed organically in Korea by Koreans. You're the one reaping the benefits of the work and toil of others. When I said that a mere handful of Black Americans have invented and innovated more modern technology that all of Asia combined, I meant it.

    A black man was very instrumental in inventing the PC you're using to write your Asian supremacist junk (see Mark Dean).

    A black man invented the modern video game console which formed the basis of the Japanese gaming industry (see Jerry Lawson).

    A black man was highly instrumental in developing the cell phone technology we have today and which your Samsung has turned into a billion dollar business (see Henry T. Thompson).

    Going back further and amid withering racism and Jim Crow, black people invented many of the transformative technologies we use today. Going back further still, we even had black people inventing and innovating as slaves. You mentioned steamboats. Well it was a black slave that perfected propeller technology (see Ben Montgomery). So that which you claim Asians were curious about, while accusing blacks of incuriosity, was in part the intellectual output of a black man. Conversely, Asians were free in their own countries. They were not subjected to debilitating and dehumanizing oppression. Yet they produced nothing. They created nothing. They invented nothing.

    I apologize to any decent Asians. But this character needs a cold dose of reality.

    Koreans invented our own alphabet suited for Korean and the first metal moveable-type printing press. We had sophisticated carpentry, luxury-quality cloth-making, fine ceramics, etc. Not much, but we were hardly savages.
     
    Korea was a primitive stone age society before and during the Korean war. I've seen the films. But unlike you, I'm not alleging that they were stupid or inferior. North Korea today is basically a mirror image of South Korea, absent U.S. largess. You were created by the United States and you've been nurtured by the United States. You've been allowed to dump all your products here while at the same time closing your markets to U.S. products. Because of the American protective umbrella, you can divert funds to other purposes that would otherwise go to defense.

    Your entire country is an American fabrication. Virtually everything you have and everything you to is copied or stolen from America. Your K-pop is derivative of musical stylings invented by the black people you hate so much. Not only the music, but the presentation, the dance routines, the attitudes, the idioms -- all reflect African-American aesthetics. So not only are you unable to invent your own tech, you can't even invent your own pop culture.

    As for “all of Asia,” the list of Nobel Prize winners in physics, chemistry, and medicine speaks for itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Asian_Nobel_laureates. The only “African” winners in those fields are European. Ouch
     
    Given that there are billions of Asians on the planet, the relative infinitesimal number of Asian Nobel Prize winners belies your Asian supremacy polemics. The Nobel, by the way, exists within a Northern European cultural matrix. Duh...that's why an overwhelming majority of the winners have been of Northern European extraction. Well now increasingly Africans are in the mix. And there's absolutely nothing to preclude the possibility that Africans will be among future Nobel Prize winners. In fact in light of your moribund performance, it's not inconceivable that Africans will surpass you in the not too distant future.

    Black Americans are an admixture with Europeans, but even then they can’t begin to match the accomplishments listed above.
     
    But if blacks are genetically inferior to whites and Asians, why would admixed blacks be far more intelligent, far more inventive and far more innovative than fully 100% whites and Asians? Umm...that doesn't make any sense. Sorry.

    Like Chisala, you use sophistry and Kangz-style bravado to ignore the elephant in the room.
     
    Well go play with Chanda. Apparently he's far more indulgent of your Asian supremacy gobbledygook. Chanda is an immigrant. Often times immigrants have a tendency to walk on eggshells. Me, I'm an American. We don't play that shit.

    Ah, the old list of “black inventors” that turn out to be cogs in the machine with tangential involvement in developing “their” inventions. I’m sure those names will be corroborated by mainstream history.

    Generally I am not sympathetic to strict HBD hierarchies, but you’ve revealed yourself as a joke.

    PS: The egalitarian mindset is a white invention, and a delusional one at that. Free yourself from it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. Jason Liu says:
    @Pat Boyle
    The Chinese did not develop gun powder. There is a well defined Gunpowder Revolution that describes when what we call black powder was first used effectively in militarily useful guns. It occurred in France and Germany in the fifteenth century. There were many separate stages to the development of effective gunpowder including corning.

    When gun powder and guns were used in the invasion of Italy by Charles VIII, all existing fortifications were instantly obsolete. Within a few years military architects created a whole new form of polygonal fortification. No high thin wall could withstand a gun. This revolution swept to the east only reaching China much later.

    People who like to think China invented gunpowder have sloppy thought processes. We celebrate an inventor when he has added the final piece that makes his invention useful. We do not attribute an invention to the first one who worked with it. If we did that we would attribute the electric light not to Edison but some early glass blower.

    All historical evidence shows gunpowder came to Europe from the East. As did gunpowder weapons.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pat Boyle
    What you say is ahistorical. Saltpeter is not as common in Europe as it is in China and India. It is certainly true that saltpeter was exploited in the East long before it was in the West. But gunpowder is a specific manufactured product that was invented in fifteenth century Europe.

    True gunpowder - that powder-like substance that was useful in guns - was in most places a royal monopoly made in purpose made factories. It's exact manufacturing process was kept a state secret. China had made saltpeter and honey fireworks many centuries earlier, but that was not gunpowder.

    Joseph Needham a virulently anti American communist may be the source of a lot of this pro-Chinese propaganda. China has probably been the most advanced civilization for most of history and may be again. The Chinese seem to do real well on IQ tests normalized on Europeans. And it is certainly true that China before the fifteenth century had many if not most of the important inventions made anywhere. But the Chinese did not invent everything. They did not invent gunpowder unless you torture the definition of the term "invent".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. @utu
    Very good catch!

    He is embarrassingly self contradictory but it’s extremely common, indeed part of intelligence challenge is to fight against self contradictions all the time.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. @RaceRealist88

    You are patronizing the readership. Most of us took Latin in school and many of us took formal logic.
     
    Who is "many of us" and how do you know that? The comment was for Santoculto, who I'm 99 percent sure didn't know that fallacy.

    The fallacy part is when you assume that you have proven causality when you merely demonstrate precedence. No one is doing that here.
     
    Santoculto wrote:

    humans were exposed to cold regions and became smarter

    So yes, someone did do that. "X happened before Y" (cold winter happened before increase in intelligence)".


    The ‘cold winter makes intelligence’ hypothesis is just that – a hypothesis, and one that I think is likely wrong. It seems simplistic and wrong to me but it isn’t a fallacy.
     
    Yea it kinda is.

    "P1: X happened before Y.
    P2: (unstated) Y was caused by something (that happened before Y).
    C1: Therefore, X caused Y"

    P1: Cold winter happened before increase in IQ/intelligence
    P2: IQ/intelligence increases were caused by something (that happened before the intelligence increase)
    C1: Therefore, cold winters caused higher IQ/intelligence

    I agree that CWT is wrong, and if you say that X caused Y, that's a fallacy.

    I don’t said this.. What fallacy?? An?

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    Yes you did. The fallacy is post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. @Santoculto
    I don't said this.. What fallacy?? An?

    Yes you did. The fallacy is post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Yes, in your alternative reality, i did...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. @RaceRealist88
    Yes you did. The fallacy is post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

    Yes, in your alternative reality, i did…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. @RaceRealist88

    You are patronizing the readership. Most of us took Latin in school and many of us took formal logic.
     
    Who is "many of us" and how do you know that? The comment was for Santoculto, who I'm 99 percent sure didn't know that fallacy.

    The fallacy part is when you assume that you have proven causality when you merely demonstrate precedence. No one is doing that here.
     
    Santoculto wrote:

    humans were exposed to cold regions and became smarter

    So yes, someone did do that. "X happened before Y" (cold winter happened before increase in intelligence)".


    The ‘cold winter makes intelligence’ hypothesis is just that – a hypothesis, and one that I think is likely wrong. It seems simplistic and wrong to me but it isn’t a fallacy.
     
    Yea it kinda is.

    "P1: X happened before Y.
    P2: (unstated) Y was caused by something (that happened before Y).
    C1: Therefore, X caused Y"

    P1: Cold winter happened before increase in IQ/intelligence
    P2: IQ/intelligence increases were caused by something (that happened before the intelligence increase)
    C1: Therefore, cold winters caused higher IQ/intelligence

    I agree that CWT is wrong, and if you say that X caused Y, that's a fallacy.

    P1: Cold winter happened before increase in IQ/intelligence

    an**

    it’s not the opposite* ;)

    this sentence don’t make sense.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88

    Yes, in your alternative reality, i did…
     
    Go back and reread your comment. You said cold winter preceded an increase in intelligence, meaning that cold winter caused IQ/intelligence.

    this sentence don’t make sense.
     
    It does. Get your reading comp up.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. @Santoculto

    P1: Cold winter happened before increase in IQ/intelligence
     
    an**

    it's not the opposite* ;)

    this sentence don't make sense.

    Yes, in your alternative reality, i did…

    Go back and reread your comment. You said cold winter preceded an increase in intelligence, meaning that cold winter caused IQ/intelligence.

    this sentence don’t make sense.

    It does. Get your reading comp up.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    NO. just no. Re-read you but i give up, i already explained thousand times and you still don’t understood.

    I believe that humans were becoming ”smarter”/future-oriented/abstract-oriented DURING their migrations from X place to Y place and when they arrived in very harsh places they stopped to evolve their intelligence because TOO constantly COLD [or hot or dry] instead to select for HIGHER CREATIVITY, it limitates.

    More unpredictable or variable is the ”behavior” of environment more likely to select for higher creativity [abstract future oriented thinking /behavioral plasticity].

    And that it’s likely they evolved OR better, increase the PROPORTION [of people] and EXPRESSION [of this features: abstract and future-oriented thinking] specially when they arrived in temperate environments exactly because this climate is the most variable of all.

    My main question is: how humans were capable to arrive in very distant places without already have increased their intelligence//abstract-future-thinking**

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. szopen says:

    Yall guys, you know what? I realised I hate both hereditarian and environmental hypothesis.

    For a long time I ridiculed environmentalists, becasue they were always inventing new explanations, and pretty much could interpret any evidence as being in favour of environmental hypothesis (“blacks score worse in tests because of low self-esteem! Oh, they have HIGHER self-esteem than whites? You see, this proves how discriminated against they are, as even though they have high self-esteem they score worse!”).

    But some time ago I thought that actually the same can be said for hereditarian hypothesis.

    The black-white gap has not narrowed – see, that proves the gap is immutable and proves biological basis!
    The black-white gap has narrowed – I can immedietely find explanation why this is actually predicted by hereditarian hypothesis: (1) the gap is not fully genetical, so it can be narrowed by 1/3 or even half (2) tabout 10% of Black marraiges are black/white couples, whose children usually count as black, hence of course gap HAS to narrow!

    I keep trying to think about things which could not be explained by one or the other theory, and except regression to the mean (or genetic tests, which are sf right now) I can think about anything.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    ''The black-white gap has not narrowed – see, that proves the gap is immutable and proves biological basis!''

    Because black-white IQ gap has no narrowed it's doesn't mean that

    is immutable because its biological basis.

    It's immutable at

    individual levels

    and

    by now.

    The only certified way that ''make'' ''blacks'' quantitatively smart'er' as ''whites'' would be via positive and negative [cognitive] eugenics [people always think eugenics is only about increase intelligence, lol, nazi eugenics proves that it's not always like that] = change in selective pressures of this population OR dumbing down whites [on avg].
    , @Santoculto
    I think the phenomenon of ''regression to the mean'' would not be exactly or restricly what we habituates to think but... why a couple with higher cognitive skills is more prone to have kids with reduced cognitive skills THAN with increased*

    Higher cognitive skill and other type of increased expression of any intellectual features seems comparable with higher height where the same regression ''to the'' mean tend to happens. The final borders of phenotypical variation and expressivity of this phenotypes.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. @RaceRealist88

    Yes, in your alternative reality, i did…
     
    Go back and reread your comment. You said cold winter preceded an increase in intelligence, meaning that cold winter caused IQ/intelligence.

    this sentence don’t make sense.
     
    It does. Get your reading comp up.

    NO. just no. Re-read you but i give up, i already explained thousand times and you still don’t understood.

    I believe that humans were becoming ”smarter”/future-oriented/abstract-oriented DURING their migrations from X place to Y place and when they arrived in very harsh places they stopped to evolve their intelligence because TOO constantly COLD [or hot or dry] instead to select for HIGHER CREATIVITY, it limitates.

    More unpredictable or variable is the ”behavior” of environment more likely to select for higher creativity [abstract future oriented thinking /behavioral plasticity].

    And that it’s likely they evolved OR better, increase the PROPORTION [of people] and EXPRESSION [of this features: abstract and future-oriented thinking] specially when they arrived in temperate environments exactly because this climate is the most variable of all.

    My main question is: how humans were capable to arrive in very distant places without already have increased their intelligence//abstract-future-thinking**

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh


    I believe that humans were becoming ”smarter”/future-oriented/abstract-oriented DURING their migrations from X place to Y place and when they arrived in very harsh places they stopped to evolve their intelligence because TOO constantly COLD [or hot or dry] instead to select for HIGHER CREATIVITY, it limitates.
     
    If this is true, we would need at least a reasonable mechanism for this to be true - perhaps that challenges in warm or hot climates were more diverse or "novel", in that the individual would be unprepared by rote learning or other instincts for dealing with.

    I'm not sure if this is true. There's more biodiversity in warmer areas but does that increase the number of novel challenges? Would general cleanliness prevent them all? If there are more types of hostile animals, would standardized forms of defense protect the humans? Would it promote instead less social cooperation if tribes can splinter more easily, and then prevent social cooperation(which seems to have had the greatest promotion in intelligence, presumably, creativity?)

    Furthermore, "creativity" is something which I feel is poorly defined and needs to be researched more. Working off Dr. Barbara Oakley's theories on learning, creativity appears to be the result of chunked knowledge, which is then recombined - often unconsciously - to solve problems. This would suggest that some combination of lack of self-inhibition, widespread general knowledge, and some other neurological factors we haven't quite captured. Perhaps even consistent sleep.
    , @RaceRealist88

    when they arrived in very harsh places they stopped to evolve their intelligence
     
    Evolution doesn't stop.

    More unpredictable or variable is the ”behavior” of environment more likely to select for higher creativity [abstract future oriented thinking /behavioral plasticity].
     
    Rushton would like you to believe that it's more predictable in colder climates and therefore planning ahead was possible which increased intelligence. That's part of the cold winter theory.

    Modern brains/bodies were already formed in Africa before the migration. That's something you seem to forget.


    specially when they arrived in temperate environments exactly because this climate is the most variable of all.
     
    Do you think that Africa has one set climate (hot and dry)?

    My main question is: how humans were capable to arrive in very distant places without already have increased their intelligence//abstract-future-thinking**
     
    It was already formed in Africa. Specific adaptations occured once Homo sapiens migrated into colder climes (physiological: https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/07/30/human-physiological-adaptations-to-climate/) (and physical: wide pelves for heat retention: https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/07/04/homo-neanderthalis-vs-homo-sapiens-sapiens-who-is-stronger-implications-for-racial-strength-differences/).

    It also helped that, as I wrote in the article on strength differences between Homo sapiens and Neanderthals, that Homo sapiens had narrower pelves and therefore were quicker than the wide-pelved Neanderthals (each pelvis is a specific adaption to climate).

    In conclusion, human cold adaptation in the form of increased metabolism and insulation seems to have occurred during recent evolution in populations, but cannot be developed during a lifetime in cold conditions as encountered in temperate and arctic regions. Therefore, we mainly depend on our behavioral skills to live in and survive the cold.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4861193/

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. @szopen
    Yall guys, you know what? I realised I hate both hereditarian and environmental hypothesis.

    For a long time I ridiculed environmentalists, becasue they were always inventing new explanations, and pretty much could interpret any evidence as being in favour of environmental hypothesis ("blacks score worse in tests because of low self-esteem! Oh, they have HIGHER self-esteem than whites? You see, this proves how discriminated against they are, as even though they have high self-esteem they score worse!").

    But some time ago I thought that actually the same can be said for hereditarian hypothesis.

    The black-white gap has not narrowed - see, that proves the gap is immutable and proves biological basis!
    The black-white gap has narrowed - I can immedietely find explanation why this is actually predicted by hereditarian hypothesis: (1) the gap is not fully genetical, so it can be narrowed by 1/3 or even half (2) tabout 10% of Black marraiges are black/white couples, whose children usually count as black, hence of course gap HAS to narrow!

    I keep trying to think about things which could not be explained by one or the other theory, and except regression to the mean (or genetic tests, which are sf right now) I can think about anything.

    ”The black-white gap has not narrowed – see, that proves the gap is immutable and proves biological basis!”

    Because black-white IQ gap has no narrowed it’s doesn’t mean that

    is immutable because its biological basis.

    It’s immutable at

    individual levels

    and

    by now.

    The only certified way that ”make” ”blacks” quantitatively smart’er’ as ”whites” would be via positive and negative [cognitive] eugenics [people always think eugenics is only about increase intelligence, lol, nazi eugenics proves that it's not always like that] = change in selective pressures of this population OR dumbing down whites [on avg].

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. @szopen
    Yall guys, you know what? I realised I hate both hereditarian and environmental hypothesis.

    For a long time I ridiculed environmentalists, becasue they were always inventing new explanations, and pretty much could interpret any evidence as being in favour of environmental hypothesis ("blacks score worse in tests because of low self-esteem! Oh, they have HIGHER self-esteem than whites? You see, this proves how discriminated against they are, as even though they have high self-esteem they score worse!").

    But some time ago I thought that actually the same can be said for hereditarian hypothesis.

    The black-white gap has not narrowed - see, that proves the gap is immutable and proves biological basis!
    The black-white gap has narrowed - I can immedietely find explanation why this is actually predicted by hereditarian hypothesis: (1) the gap is not fully genetical, so it can be narrowed by 1/3 or even half (2) tabout 10% of Black marraiges are black/white couples, whose children usually count as black, hence of course gap HAS to narrow!

    I keep trying to think about things which could not be explained by one or the other theory, and except regression to the mean (or genetic tests, which are sf right now) I can think about anything.

    I think the phenomenon of ”regression to the mean” would not be exactly or restricly what we habituates to think but… why a couple with higher cognitive skills is more prone to have kids with reduced cognitive skills THAN with increased*

    Higher cognitive skill and other type of increased expression of any intellectual features seems comparable with higher height where the same regression ”to the” mean tend to happens. The final borders of phenotypical variation and expressivity of this phenotypes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. @Santoculto
    NO. just no. Re-read you but i give up, i already explained thousand times and you still don’t understood.

    I believe that humans were becoming ”smarter”/future-oriented/abstract-oriented DURING their migrations from X place to Y place and when they arrived in very harsh places they stopped to evolve their intelligence because TOO constantly COLD [or hot or dry] instead to select for HIGHER CREATIVITY, it limitates.

    More unpredictable or variable is the ”behavior” of environment more likely to select for higher creativity [abstract future oriented thinking /behavioral plasticity].

    And that it’s likely they evolved OR better, increase the PROPORTION [of people] and EXPRESSION [of this features: abstract and future-oriented thinking] specially when they arrived in temperate environments exactly because this climate is the most variable of all.

    My main question is: how humans were capable to arrive in very distant places without already have increased their intelligence//abstract-future-thinking**

    I believe that humans were becoming ”smarter”/future-oriented/abstract-oriented DURING their migrations from X place to Y place and when they arrived in very harsh places they stopped to evolve their intelligence because TOO constantly COLD [or hot or dry] instead to select for HIGHER CREATIVITY, it limitates.

    If this is true, we would need at least a reasonable mechanism for this to be true – perhaps that challenges in warm or hot climates were more diverse or “novel”, in that the individual would be unprepared by rote learning or other instincts for dealing with.

    I’m not sure if this is true. There’s more biodiversity in warmer areas but does that increase the number of novel challenges? Would general cleanliness prevent them all? If there are more types of hostile animals, would standardized forms of defense protect the humans? Would it promote instead less social cooperation if tribes can splinter more easily, and then prevent social cooperation(which seems to have had the greatest promotion in intelligence, presumably, creativity?)

    Furthermore, “creativity” is something which I feel is poorly defined and needs to be researched more. Working off Dr. Barbara Oakley’s theories on learning, creativity appears to be the result of chunked knowledge, which is then recombined – often unconsciously – to solve problems. This would suggest that some combination of lack of self-inhibition, widespread general knowledge, and some other neurological factors we haven’t quite captured. Perhaps even consistent sleep.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto

    I’m not sure if this is true. There’s more biodiversity in warmer areas but does that increase the number of novel challenges? Would general cleanliness prevent them all? If there are more types of hostile animals, would standardized forms of defense protect the humans? Would it promote instead less social cooperation if tribes can splinter more easily, and then prevent social cooperation(which seems to have had the greatest promotion in intelligence, presumably, creativity?)
     
    I think it's different when we have a place where there are dangers ''all the time'' BUT the climate itself compensates. It's select for short-term thinking to deal with this everyday challenges.

    Too cold climates also select for short-term thinking but in different ways OR levels. Inuits are ''short-term''/practical thinkers as any intertropical human groups BUT they are not in the same levels. Also, lower levels of social complexity, deal with different people's for example, tends to select against higher abstract thinkers.

    I think short-term thinking itself may reduce cooperation because it's tend to be more instinctive/impulsive, but i don't think intra-group cooperation is lower in most of intertropical hunter gatherers groups than among extra-tropical ones.

    Furthermore, “creativity” is something which I feel is poorly defined and needs to be researched more. Working off Dr. Barbara Oakley’s theories on learning, creativity appears to be the result of chunked knowledge, which is then recombined – often unconsciously – to solve problems. This would suggest that some combination of lack of self-inhibition, widespread general knowledge, and some other neurological factors we haven’t quite captured. Perhaps even consistent sleep.
     
    I necessarily don't think creativity is poorly defined, it's basically to think in different ways to solve known OR novel problems. It's indeed reasoning per se. Indeed all things we have it's due to creativity. I have impression because increase of self-domestication creativity became rare and/or split from what we call ''intelligence''. What we understand unilaterally as ''intelligence'' in the truth mean ''capacity to memorize/internalize and to use creative inventions''.

    Usually environment decide the destiny of living beings. Humans are the only ones, because its very developed self-awareness, which can challenge the [usually] big influence of environment in your evolutionary path. I also don't think intertropical groups ''no have creativity'', very obvious they have, but that novel environments have selected or increased creativity BUT maybe, not among all people, but some people, if every human community is hierarchical. OR, when some tribes increased their [avg] intelligence, those who are more creative also follows this evolution.

    Also we can think if when humans master some environment they tend to explore new lands accumulating more culture/knowledge [and requiring higher memory to recall them]. Inuits and other subpolar groups inherited many cultural practices as ''animal'' skin clothes and invent news as iglu.
    , @RaceRealist88

    If this is true, we would need at least a reasonable mechanism for this to be true – perhaps that challenges in warm or hot climates were more diverse or “novel”, in that the individual would be unprepared by rote learning or other instincts for dealing with.
     
    Dobzhansky (1950: 221) notes that “Tropical environments provide more evolutionary challenges than do the environments of temperate and cold lands."

    http://cyber.sci-hub.bz/MTAuMjMwNy8yNzgyNjMwNg==/10.2307%4027826306.pdf

    So the fact that higher intelligence evolved in Eurasia due to the extreme cold/novel environments is on shaky ground.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. @Daniel Chieh


    I believe that humans were becoming ”smarter”/future-oriented/abstract-oriented DURING their migrations from X place to Y place and when they arrived in very harsh places they stopped to evolve their intelligence because TOO constantly COLD [or hot or dry] instead to select for HIGHER CREATIVITY, it limitates.
     
    If this is true, we would need at least a reasonable mechanism for this to be true - perhaps that challenges in warm or hot climates were more diverse or "novel", in that the individual would be unprepared by rote learning or other instincts for dealing with.

    I'm not sure if this is true. There's more biodiversity in warmer areas but does that increase the number of novel challenges? Would general cleanliness prevent them all? If there are more types of hostile animals, would standardized forms of defense protect the humans? Would it promote instead less social cooperation if tribes can splinter more easily, and then prevent social cooperation(which seems to have had the greatest promotion in intelligence, presumably, creativity?)

    Furthermore, "creativity" is something which I feel is poorly defined and needs to be researched more. Working off Dr. Barbara Oakley's theories on learning, creativity appears to be the result of chunked knowledge, which is then recombined - often unconsciously - to solve problems. This would suggest that some combination of lack of self-inhibition, widespread general knowledge, and some other neurological factors we haven't quite captured. Perhaps even consistent sleep.

    I’m not sure if this is true. There’s more biodiversity in warmer areas but does that increase the number of novel challenges? Would general cleanliness prevent them all? If there are more types of hostile animals, would standardized forms of defense protect the humans? Would it promote instead less social cooperation if tribes can splinter more easily, and then prevent social cooperation(which seems to have had the greatest promotion in intelligence, presumably, creativity?)

    I think it’s different when we have a place where there are dangers ”all the time” BUT the climate itself compensates. It’s select for short-term thinking to deal with this everyday challenges.

    Too cold climates also select for short-term thinking but in different ways OR levels. Inuits are ”short-term”/practical thinkers as any intertropical human groups BUT they are not in the same levels. Also, lower levels of social complexity, deal with different people’s for example, tends to select against higher abstract thinkers.

    I think short-term thinking itself may reduce cooperation because it’s tend to be more instinctive/impulsive, but i don’t think intra-group cooperation is lower in most of intertropical hunter gatherers groups than among extra-tropical ones.

    Furthermore, “creativity” is something which I feel is poorly defined and needs to be researched more. Working off Dr. Barbara Oakley’s theories on learning, creativity appears to be the result of chunked knowledge, which is then recombined – often unconsciously – to solve problems. This would suggest that some combination of lack of self-inhibition, widespread general knowledge, and some other neurological factors we haven’t quite captured. Perhaps even consistent sleep.

    I necessarily don’t think creativity is poorly defined, it’s basically to think in different ways to solve known OR novel problems. It’s indeed reasoning per se. Indeed all things we have it’s due to creativity. I have impression because increase of self-domestication creativity became rare and/or split from what we call ”intelligence”. What we understand unilaterally as ”intelligence” in the truth mean ”capacity to memorize/internalize and to use creative inventions”.

    Usually environment decide the destiny of living beings. Humans are the only ones, because its very developed self-awareness, which can challenge the [usually] big influence of environment in your evolutionary path. I also don’t think intertropical groups ”no have creativity”, very obvious they have, but that novel environments have selected or increased creativity BUT maybe, not among all people, but some people, if every human community is hierarchical. OR, when some tribes increased their [avg] intelligence, those who are more creative also follows this evolution.

    Also we can think if when humans master some environment they tend to explore new lands accumulating more culture/knowledge [and requiring higher memory to recall them]. Inuits and other subpolar groups inherited many cultural practices as ”animal” skin clothes and invent news as iglu.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Novel problems would select for improved ability to associate only if only novel answers helped solve those problems, but I'm not sure if that is true. If the solution to "red-colored animals" is to avoid them and the solution for "large, predatory" animals is to defend/kill them, then the fact that both grey wolves and dire wolves exist doesn't necessarily select for innovative methods, but innervate around known solutions.

    From my understanding based on current neuroscience, we are aware that knowledge exists as "nodules" on nerves, which are then chunked such that they occur together in a consistent pattern; depending on the frequency of path by which a set of knowledge is used, the more innervated with white matter or myelinated that it has. Processing becomes faster and more fluid.

    So to find new solutions, some things appear to have to be there: the chunks of knowledge to be hybridized, a novel problem or objective, and some period of incubation. Some sort of idea generator motors this, possibly associated with working memory(which seems to be a set of temporary chemicals which can hold concepts); most ideas generated are totally worthless, such as dreams of walking on light or other mostly subconscious gibberish, but some reconceptualize chunks of knowledge into ways that are useful. This produces "ah hah" moments, learning and I'll say, overall creativity as well.

    This all seems to be a fairly sensitive process, such that disease load would presumably affect it quite adversely.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. @Daniel Chieh


    I believe that humans were becoming ”smarter”/future-oriented/abstract-oriented DURING their migrations from X place to Y place and when they arrived in very harsh places they stopped to evolve their intelligence because TOO constantly COLD [or hot or dry] instead to select for HIGHER CREATIVITY, it limitates.
     
    If this is true, we would need at least a reasonable mechanism for this to be true - perhaps that challenges in warm or hot climates were more diverse or "novel", in that the individual would be unprepared by rote learning or other instincts for dealing with.

    I'm not sure if this is true. There's more biodiversity in warmer areas but does that increase the number of novel challenges? Would general cleanliness prevent them all? If there are more types of hostile animals, would standardized forms of defense protect the humans? Would it promote instead less social cooperation if tribes can splinter more easily, and then prevent social cooperation(which seems to have had the greatest promotion in intelligence, presumably, creativity?)

    Furthermore, "creativity" is something which I feel is poorly defined and needs to be researched more. Working off Dr. Barbara Oakley's theories on learning, creativity appears to be the result of chunked knowledge, which is then recombined - often unconsciously - to solve problems. This would suggest that some combination of lack of self-inhibition, widespread general knowledge, and some other neurological factors we haven't quite captured. Perhaps even consistent sleep.

    If this is true, we would need at least a reasonable mechanism for this to be true – perhaps that challenges in warm or hot climates were more diverse or “novel”, in that the individual would be unprepared by rote learning or other instincts for dealing with.

    Dobzhansky (1950: 221) notes that “Tropical environments provide more evolutionary challenges than do the environments of temperate and cold lands.

    http://cyber.sci-hub.bz/MTAuMjMwNy8yNzgyNjMwNg==/10.2307%4027826306.pdf

    So the fact that higher intelligence evolved in Eurasia due to the extreme cold/novel environments is on shaky ground.

    Read More
    • Replies: @szopen
    Nevertheless it seems that different climates may produce differences in brain structure within a species:

    Timothy Roth et al "Variation in Hippocampal Glial Cell Numbers in Food-Caching Birds from Different Climates"
    Also, earlier (2010)
    Timoty Roth et al "Learning capabilities enhanced in harsh environments: a common garden approach"
    http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2010/05/29/rspb.2010.0630?sid=1580b0b0-1c12-4ba1-abd8-2e0bc92fd7fd

    Now, of course you would say that for food-caching birds it's different and that pressure for having better memory is not the same as pressure for higher intelligence, and puzzles he gave to birds are not measuring, arguably, the general intelligence [1]. But given it is within-species difference and is being preserved in lab-reared birds (and hece, most likely heritable), and it's unlikely that it's caused by racism against chickadees from warmer climate it does seem to suggest that harsher climate may sometimes pose more challenges for at least some species, resulting in visible brain structure differences, no? The point about shorter days (hence less time for finding food) stands for humans too.

    OTOH, the "two different environmental extremes" does not seem to be very convincing.

    [1] from the 2010 paper:

    The problem-solving test involved removing galvanized steel washers (3.5 cm diameter, 1.5 cm diameter hole; roughly equal to the mass of the birds, approx. 15 g) covered with clear 3M acetate from a 3 × 5 grid of 1.5 cm wells drilled into a wooden board (40 × 18 cm) containing wax worms
     
    , @notanon

    Dobzhansky (1950: 221) notes that “Tropical environments provide more evolutionary challenges than do the environments of temperate and cold lands.”

    http://cyber.sci-hub.bz/MTAuMjMwNy8yNzgyNjMwNg==/10.2307%4027826306.pdf

    So the fact that higher intelligence evolved in Eurasia due to the extreme cold/novel environments is on shaky ground.
     
    It doesn't require more difficult challenges only new ones.

    Say group A evolves enough intelligence to deal with their initial environment A and then stop while a breakaway group moves to environment B which has new challenges which the smarter ones adapt to first, thus bumping the average IQ up a point or two each time - so the northernmost population is standing on the shoulders of all the previous layers.

    Logically i think it could have happened either of two ways: 1) a gradual increase as populations moved to each novel environment or 2) winter forcing the evolution of lower time preference and lower time preference magnifying the evolution of intelligence (or a bit of both).
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Does "more evolutionary challenges" mean "more challenges which require enhanced cognitive ability in order to survive a produce and rear children to adulthood"?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. @Santoculto
    NO. just no. Re-read you but i give up, i already explained thousand times and you still don’t understood.

    I believe that humans were becoming ”smarter”/future-oriented/abstract-oriented DURING their migrations from X place to Y place and when they arrived in very harsh places they stopped to evolve their intelligence because TOO constantly COLD [or hot or dry] instead to select for HIGHER CREATIVITY, it limitates.

    More unpredictable or variable is the ”behavior” of environment more likely to select for higher creativity [abstract future oriented thinking /behavioral plasticity].

    And that it’s likely they evolved OR better, increase the PROPORTION [of people] and EXPRESSION [of this features: abstract and future-oriented thinking] specially when they arrived in temperate environments exactly because this climate is the most variable of all.

    My main question is: how humans were capable to arrive in very distant places without already have increased their intelligence//abstract-future-thinking**

    when they arrived in very harsh places they stopped to evolve their intelligence

    Evolution doesn’t stop.

    More unpredictable or variable is the ”behavior” of environment more likely to select for higher creativity [abstract future oriented thinking /behavioral plasticity].

    Rushton would like you to believe that it’s more predictable in colder climates and therefore planning ahead was possible which increased intelligence. That’s part of the cold winter theory.

    Modern brains/bodies were already formed in Africa before the migration. That’s something you seem to forget.

    specially when they arrived in temperate environments exactly because this climate is the most variable of all.

    Do you think that Africa has one set climate (hot and dry)?

    My main question is: how humans were capable to arrive in very distant places without already have increased their intelligence//abstract-future-thinking**

    It was already formed in Africa. Specific adaptations occured once Homo sapiens migrated into colder climes (physiological: https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/07/30/human-physiological-adaptations-to-climate/) (and physical: wide pelves for heat retention: https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/07/04/homo-neanderthalis-vs-homo-sapiens-sapiens-who-is-stronger-implications-for-racial-strength-differences/).

    It also helped that, as I wrote in the article on strength differences between Homo sapiens and Neanderthals, that Homo sapiens had narrower pelves and therefore were quicker than the wide-pelved Neanderthals (each pelvis is a specific adaption to climate).

    In conclusion, human cold adaptation in the form of increased metabolism and insulation seems to have occurred during recent evolution in populations, but cannot be developed during a lifetime in cold conditions as encountered in temperate and arctic regions. Therefore, we mainly depend on our behavioral skills to live in and survive the cold.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4861193/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto

    Evolution doesn’t stop.

     

    Yes, sometimes or often stop, regress OR conserve. I think most part of time species conserve themselves than evolve specially when they find their balance with the environment.

    Do you think that Africa has one set climate (hot and dry)?
     
    OBVIOUSLY not. But no have large continental portions with temperate climate.

    Rushton would like you to believe that it’s more predictable in colder climates and therefore planning ahead was possible which increased intelligence. That’s part of the cold winter theory.
    Modern brains/bodies were already formed in Africa before the migration. That’s something you seem to forget.
     
    Yess, and you forgot to pay whole attention to my comment where i said ''i don't think 'africans' --no have creativity --''.

    I don't think he believed ''colder climates is more predictable'', any source* any quote*

    I believe because lower termic amplitude this types of extreme climates become more predictable but respectively in different ways.

    in temperate and arctic regions
     
    But temperate regions tend to be quite different than arctic or polar.
    , @res

    Therefore, we mainly depend on our behavioral skills to live in and survive the cold.
     
    It is interesting that you consider this important enough to emphasize (bolding). Which kind of behavioral skills do you think are most relevant? Is intelligence one of those?

    What do you think are possible explanations for the correlation of IQ with latitude seen in Japan?
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613000949

    Thanks for your earlier references to Eppig's work. Here is one example: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/44888621_Parasite_Prevalence_and_the_Worldwide_Distribution_of_Cognitive_Ability

    From the abstract:

    Infectious disease remains the most powerful predictor of average national IQ when temperature, distance from Africa, gross domestic product per capita and several measures of education are controlled for.
     
    Looking at Table 1 we see that DALY disease (the logarithm of it) and winter high temperature correlate with average IQ at -0.82 and -0.72 respectively and also correlate 0.71 with each other (both also correlate about -0.4 with the logarithm of the distance from central Africa). So evidence for the importance of disease, but hardly evidence against the importance of cold winters. An interesting question is how each would correlate with phenotypic vs. genotypic IQ if such data was available.

    Table 3 shows the results for a multiple regression model. DALY disease and winter high temperature have similar p-values. One interesting issue (uncommented on in the paper AFAICT) is that the VIF (variance inflation factor) for DALY disease is 6. Per this page a VIF of over 4 indicates multicollinearity may be a problem and requires further investigation: https://onlinecourses.science.psu.edu/stat501/node/347

    I wish they had done an ANOVA. And perhaps presented other models including different subsets of their explanatory variables.

    This excerpt from the discussion seems fairly reasonable except for "large margin" which I think is an overstatement of the results:

    Multiple regression shows that, of infectious disease, temperature, evolutionary novelty and AVED, infectious disease is the best predictor of intelligence by a large margin. The effects of years of education are not significant, while temperature and evolutionary novelty seem to have distinct predictive power beyond infectious disease. Although this model cannot rule out the independent effect of distance from central Africa, this effect is difficult to interpret because of the doubt cast on the theory underlying this variable (Wicherts et al. 2010a). Although the effects of education and GDP per capita are not statistically significant when other factors are controlled for, this is not to say that these factors are not involved. A nation of more intelligent individuals is likely to produce a higher GDP, but a wealthier nation is also more able to pay for public education, as well as public medical and sanitation services. An indirect link between education and intelligence may also exist, as a better-educated population may be more interested in public health measures—leading to increased IQ by reducing parasite stress—provided that education includes information about germ theory and hygiene. These sources of endogeneity must be considered when interpreting our findings (and see below). It should also be mentioned that we are not arguing that global variation in intelligence is only caused by parasite stress. Rather, variation in intelligence is probably caused by a variety of factors, including those we have mentioned here as well as factors that are yet unknown.

     

    Notice the final two sentences.

    And here is a look at temperature and IQ: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289605000917
    The paper is available at libgen. One nice feature of that paper is that Table 2 contains a listing of their data for all countries and explicitly states which IQ scores are calculated and which are estimates (and Table 4 gives correlations for both subgroups as well as all countries). That data could be handy for reproducing their analysis. It looks like it could be converted to a spreadsheet with a little effort. Perhaps I should do my own ANOVA, etc.?

    The paper PDF conveniently includes the three comments mentioned at the link above. I think the latter two provide a good sample of the arguments in play here. In particular, section 4. A concluding comment of the Hunt and Sternberg response makes clear where the "hot buttons" are.

    It is interesting to see this paper also included an Editorial note on controversial papers at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289605000954
    PDF of that is also at libgen.
    , @notanon

    Do you think that Africa has one set climate (hot and dry)?
     
    there could be an infinite number of environments where food was available all year round but i think the critical element is having an environment where food isn't available for a substantial part of the year *requiring* the evolution of lower time preference to survive.

    personally i wonder if the evolution of lower time preference was the critical precursor magnifying the benefit of evolved intelligence and thus speeding it up?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QX_oy9614HQ
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. @Santoculto

    I’m not sure if this is true. There’s more biodiversity in warmer areas but does that increase the number of novel challenges? Would general cleanliness prevent them all? If there are more types of hostile animals, would standardized forms of defense protect the humans? Would it promote instead less social cooperation if tribes can splinter more easily, and then prevent social cooperation(which seems to have had the greatest promotion in intelligence, presumably, creativity?)
     
    I think it's different when we have a place where there are dangers ''all the time'' BUT the climate itself compensates. It's select for short-term thinking to deal with this everyday challenges.

    Too cold climates also select for short-term thinking but in different ways OR levels. Inuits are ''short-term''/practical thinkers as any intertropical human groups BUT they are not in the same levels. Also, lower levels of social complexity, deal with different people's for example, tends to select against higher abstract thinkers.

    I think short-term thinking itself may reduce cooperation because it's tend to be more instinctive/impulsive, but i don't think intra-group cooperation is lower in most of intertropical hunter gatherers groups than among extra-tropical ones.

    Furthermore, “creativity” is something which I feel is poorly defined and needs to be researched more. Working off Dr. Barbara Oakley’s theories on learning, creativity appears to be the result of chunked knowledge, which is then recombined – often unconsciously – to solve problems. This would suggest that some combination of lack of self-inhibition, widespread general knowledge, and some other neurological factors we haven’t quite captured. Perhaps even consistent sleep.
     
    I necessarily don't think creativity is poorly defined, it's basically to think in different ways to solve known OR novel problems. It's indeed reasoning per se. Indeed all things we have it's due to creativity. I have impression because increase of self-domestication creativity became rare and/or split from what we call ''intelligence''. What we understand unilaterally as ''intelligence'' in the truth mean ''capacity to memorize/internalize and to use creative inventions''.

    Usually environment decide the destiny of living beings. Humans are the only ones, because its very developed self-awareness, which can challenge the [usually] big influence of environment in your evolutionary path. I also don't think intertropical groups ''no have creativity'', very obvious they have, but that novel environments have selected or increased creativity BUT maybe, not among all people, but some people, if every human community is hierarchical. OR, when some tribes increased their [avg] intelligence, those who are more creative also follows this evolution.

    Also we can think if when humans master some environment they tend to explore new lands accumulating more culture/knowledge [and requiring higher memory to recall them]. Inuits and other subpolar groups inherited many cultural practices as ''animal'' skin clothes and invent news as iglu.

    Novel problems would select for improved ability to associate only if only novel answers helped solve those problems, but I’m not sure if that is true. If the solution to “red-colored animals” is to avoid them and the solution for “large, predatory” animals is to defend/kill them, then the fact that both grey wolves and dire wolves exist doesn’t necessarily select for innovative methods, but innervate around known solutions.

    From my understanding based on current neuroscience, we are aware that knowledge exists as “nodules” on nerves, which are then chunked such that they occur together in a consistent pattern; depending on the frequency of path by which a set of knowledge is used, the more innervated with white matter or myelinated that it has. Processing becomes faster and more fluid.

    So to find new solutions, some things appear to have to be there: the chunks of knowledge to be hybridized, a novel problem or objective, and some period of incubation. Some sort of idea generator motors this, possibly associated with working memory(which seems to be a set of temporary chemicals which can hold concepts); most ideas generated are totally worthless, such as dreams of walking on light or other mostly subconscious gibberish, but some reconceptualize chunks of knowledge into ways that are useful. This produces “ah hah” moments, learning and I’ll say, overall creativity as well.

    This all seems to be a fairly sensitive process, such that disease load would presumably affect it quite adversely.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    This all seems to be a fairly sensitive process, such that disease load would presumably affect it quite adversely.
     
    Could you break down how you see this in terms of:
    1. Evolutionary pressure on intelligence.
    2. Phenotypic intelligence in individuals.

    Disease load seems much more obviously relevant to 2. than to 1. for me. However, I am interested in arguments for why disease load might affect the evolution of intelligence.

    I'll start the ball rolling by providing one. Evolutionary pressure for metabolically expensive higher intelligence might be lessened by disease effects on phenotype resulting in the metabolic expense remaining while lessening the resultant intelligence. Put another way, a big brain which is ineffective due to disease load is still metabolically expensive (as well as retaining the pelvis size issues of big brains).
    , @Santoculto

    Novel problems would select for improved ability to associate only if only novel answers helped solve those problems, but I’m not sure if that is true. If the solution to “red-colored animals” is to avoid them and the solution for “large, predatory” animals is to defend/kill them, then the fact that both grey wolves and dire wolves exist doesn’t necessarily select for innovative methods, but innervate around known solutions.
     
    Well, i think body-adaptations also can be described as ''creativity'' if all novel adaptations are creative, thinking in creativity as large concept, but we are talking about human abstract thinking, predictive/cultural and not body-adaptations directly caused by long term environmental interactions/pressures.

    Nonhuman beings are selected/adapted or evolved by the environments they are. Even this process also happens among humans, ''we'' have bigger awareness, if compared with other beings, of our sorrounds and may can anticipate, predict or think in ways to adapt.

    This all seems to be a fairly sensitive process, such that disease load would presumably affect it quite adversely.
     
    So you think it's impossible to become smarter in high disease load*
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. @RaceRealist88

    when they arrived in very harsh places they stopped to evolve their intelligence
     
    Evolution doesn't stop.

    More unpredictable or variable is the ”behavior” of environment more likely to select for higher creativity [abstract future oriented thinking /behavioral plasticity].
     
    Rushton would like you to believe that it's more predictable in colder climates and therefore planning ahead was possible which increased intelligence. That's part of the cold winter theory.

    Modern brains/bodies were already formed in Africa before the migration. That's something you seem to forget.


    specially when they arrived in temperate environments exactly because this climate is the most variable of all.
     
    Do you think that Africa has one set climate (hot and dry)?

    My main question is: how humans were capable to arrive in very distant places without already have increased their intelligence//abstract-future-thinking**
     
    It was already formed in Africa. Specific adaptations occured once Homo sapiens migrated into colder climes (physiological: https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/07/30/human-physiological-adaptations-to-climate/) (and physical: wide pelves for heat retention: https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/07/04/homo-neanderthalis-vs-homo-sapiens-sapiens-who-is-stronger-implications-for-racial-strength-differences/).

    It also helped that, as I wrote in the article on strength differences between Homo sapiens and Neanderthals, that Homo sapiens had narrower pelves and therefore were quicker than the wide-pelved Neanderthals (each pelvis is a specific adaption to climate).

    In conclusion, human cold adaptation in the form of increased metabolism and insulation seems to have occurred during recent evolution in populations, but cannot be developed during a lifetime in cold conditions as encountered in temperate and arctic regions. Therefore, we mainly depend on our behavioral skills to live in and survive the cold.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4861193/

    Evolution doesn’t stop.

    Yes, sometimes or often stop, regress OR conserve. I think most part of time species conserve themselves than evolve specially when they find their balance with the environment.

    Do you think that Africa has one set climate (hot and dry)?

    OBVIOUSLY not. But no have large continental portions with temperate climate.

    Rushton would like you to believe that it’s more predictable in colder climates and therefore planning ahead was possible which increased intelligence. That’s part of the cold winter theory.
    Modern brains/bodies were already formed in Africa before the migration. That’s something you seem to forget.

    Yess, and you forgot to pay whole attention to my comment where i said ”i don’t think ‘africans’ –no have creativity –”.

    I don’t think he believed ”colder climates is more predictable”, any source* any quote*

    I believe because lower termic amplitude this types of extreme climates become more predictable but respectively in different ways.

    in temperate and arctic regions

    But temperate regions tend to be quite different than arctic or polar.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88

    Yes, sometimes or often stop, regress OR conserve.
     
    Evolution has no direction, it's not teleological so your words are meaningless. Evolution just happens, there is no "goal" or "direction".

    OBVIOUSLY not. But no have large continental portions with temperate climate.
     
    Right but there is no one constant climate through out the continent. There are semi-wet places in Africa, but I'm not knowledgeable in that aspect. There are numerous climates and ecosystems in Africa.

    I don’t think he believed ”colder climates is more predictable”, any source* any quote*
     
    He did.

    I believe because lower termic amplitude this types of extreme climates become more predictable but respectively in different ways.
     
    Right. Subjective ways. Subjective ways that you can shoehorn things to fit what you'd like it to say.

    But temperate regions tend to be quite different than arctic or polar.
     
    But they're more similar to arctic and polar than to tropical.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. @Santoculto

    Evolution doesn’t stop.

     

    Yes, sometimes or often stop, regress OR conserve. I think most part of time species conserve themselves than evolve specially when they find their balance with the environment.

    Do you think that Africa has one set climate (hot and dry)?
     
    OBVIOUSLY not. But no have large continental portions with temperate climate.

    Rushton would like you to believe that it’s more predictable in colder climates and therefore planning ahead was possible which increased intelligence. That’s part of the cold winter theory.
    Modern brains/bodies were already formed in Africa before the migration. That’s something you seem to forget.
     
    Yess, and you forgot to pay whole attention to my comment where i said ''i don't think 'africans' --no have creativity --''.

    I don't think he believed ''colder climates is more predictable'', any source* any quote*

    I believe because lower termic amplitude this types of extreme climates become more predictable but respectively in different ways.

    in temperate and arctic regions
     
    But temperate regions tend to be quite different than arctic or polar.

    Yes, sometimes or often stop, regress OR conserve.

    Evolution has no direction, it’s not teleological so your words are meaningless. Evolution just happens, there is no “goal” or “direction”.

    OBVIOUSLY not. But no have large continental portions with temperate climate.

    Right but there is no one constant climate through out the continent. There are semi-wet places in Africa, but I’m not knowledgeable in that aspect. There are numerous climates and ecosystems in Africa.

    I don’t think he believed ”colder climates is more predictable”, any source* any quote*

    He did.

    I believe because lower termic amplitude this types of extreme climates become more predictable but respectively in different ways.

    Right. Subjective ways. Subjective ways that you can shoehorn things to fit what you’d like it to say.

    But temperate regions tend to be quite different than arctic or polar.

    But they’re more similar to arctic and polar than to tropical.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88

    any source* any quote*
     
    Check his book.
    , @Daniel Chieh

    Evolution has no direction, it’s not teleological so your words are meaningless. Evolution just happens, there is no “goal” or “direction”.

     

    What would you call happened in Rat Utopia?
    , @res

    Evolution has no direction, it’s not teleological so your words are meaningless. Evolution just happens, there is no “goal” or “direction”.
     
    I disagree. I think it is quite meaningful (and yes I know there are philosophical quibbles) to say both of these:

    - Evolution has the goal (perhaps "result" is better?) of increasing fitness in a given environment.
    - Evolution of measurable traits within a particular group at a particular time may very well have a direction. This direction need not be constant across time or groups.

    We can argue about the details of what Santoculto said in his response to you:


    Evolution doesn’t stop.

     
    Yes, sometimes or often stop, regress OR conserve. I think most part of time species conserve themselves than evolve specially when they find their balance with the environment.
     
    But IMHO he is making a sound (and important!) point.

    The evolution of the peppered moth provides an excellent illustration of his point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution

    Do you disagree with both directional evolution of moth color and its reversal being observed?
    , @Santoculto

    Evolution has no direction, it’s not teleological so your words are meaningless. Evolution just happens, there is no “goal” or “direction”.

     

    yessss, BUT it's doesn't mean evolution is TOTALLY random, just like, a bird evolved to human in one or two generations...

    So evolution don't stop AND no have direction.... isn't*

    ''evolution don't stop'' = teleological*


    Right but there is no one constant climate through out the continent. There are semi-wet places in Africa, but I’m not knowledgeable in that aspect. There are numerous climates and ecosystems in Africa.
     
    All climates are in some degree inconstant ''or' variable at least in its typical weather behavior but i'm talking about the more variable climate: temperate.

    Right. Subjective ways. Subjective ways that you can shoehorn things to fit what you’d like it to say.
     
    hmmm. No.

    Different and not subjective.

    Colder climate is constant but, well, it's cold, the air is already deadly if you're not adapted or protected.

    Warmer climate, equatorial or even oceanic tropical is both constant, on avg. You will not die because you breathe tropical or equatorial air itself.

    Colder climate is challenge itself, Intertropical climates no. Temperate climates combine still more biodiversity [than colder regions] and period of intense cold and bigger thermic amplitude.


    But they’re more similar to arctic and polar than to tropical.
     
    Maybe you are confusing temperate [oceanic and continental variants] with cold climate, intermediary between polar and temperate climate, found in places as big portions of Canada/Cucknada.
    , @notanon

    Evolution has no direction, it’s not teleological so your words are meaningless. Evolution just happens, there is no “goal” or “direction”.
     
    sure it does: the maximum possible amount of life
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. @RaceRealist88

    Yes, sometimes or often stop, regress OR conserve.
     
    Evolution has no direction, it's not teleological so your words are meaningless. Evolution just happens, there is no "goal" or "direction".

    OBVIOUSLY not. But no have large continental portions with temperate climate.
     
    Right but there is no one constant climate through out the continent. There are semi-wet places in Africa, but I'm not knowledgeable in that aspect. There are numerous climates and ecosystems in Africa.

    I don’t think he believed ”colder climates is more predictable”, any source* any quote*
     
    He did.

    I believe because lower termic amplitude this types of extreme climates become more predictable but respectively in different ways.
     
    Right. Subjective ways. Subjective ways that you can shoehorn things to fit what you'd like it to say.

    But temperate regions tend to be quite different than arctic or polar.
     
    But they're more similar to arctic and polar than to tropical.

    any source* any quote*

    Check his book.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. @RaceRealist88

    Yes, sometimes or often stop, regress OR conserve.
     
    Evolution has no direction, it's not teleological so your words are meaningless. Evolution just happens, there is no "goal" or "direction".

    OBVIOUSLY not. But no have large continental portions with temperate climate.
     
    Right but there is no one constant climate through out the continent. There are semi-wet places in Africa, but I'm not knowledgeable in that aspect. There are numerous climates and ecosystems in Africa.

    I don’t think he believed ”colder climates is more predictable”, any source* any quote*
     
    He did.

    I believe because lower termic amplitude this types of extreme climates become more predictable but respectively in different ways.
     
    Right. Subjective ways. Subjective ways that you can shoehorn things to fit what you'd like it to say.

    But temperate regions tend to be quite different than arctic or polar.
     
    But they're more similar to arctic and polar than to tropical.

    Evolution has no direction, it’s not teleological so your words are meaningless. Evolution just happens, there is no “goal” or “direction”.

    What would you call happened in Rat Utopia?

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88

    What would you call happened in Rat Utopia?
     
    I don't know what that is.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. res says:
    @RaceRealist88

    when they arrived in very harsh places they stopped to evolve their intelligence
     
    Evolution doesn't stop.

    More unpredictable or variable is the ”behavior” of environment more likely to select for higher creativity [abstract future oriented thinking /behavioral plasticity].
     
    Rushton would like you to believe that it's more predictable in colder climates and therefore planning ahead was possible which increased intelligence. That's part of the cold winter theory.

    Modern brains/bodies were already formed in Africa before the migration. That's something you seem to forget.


    specially when they arrived in temperate environments exactly because this climate is the most variable of all.
     
    Do you think that Africa has one set climate (hot and dry)?

    My main question is: how humans were capable to arrive in very distant places without already have increased their intelligence//abstract-future-thinking**
     
    It was already formed in Africa. Specific adaptations occured once Homo sapiens migrated into colder climes (physiological: https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/07/30/human-physiological-adaptations-to-climate/) (and physical: wide pelves for heat retention: https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/07/04/homo-neanderthalis-vs-homo-sapiens-sapiens-who-is-stronger-implications-for-racial-strength-differences/).

    It also helped that, as I wrote in the article on strength differences between Homo sapiens and Neanderthals, that Homo sapiens had narrower pelves and therefore were quicker than the wide-pelved Neanderthals (each pelvis is a specific adaption to climate).

    In conclusion, human cold adaptation in the form of increased metabolism and insulation seems to have occurred during recent evolution in populations, but cannot be developed during a lifetime in cold conditions as encountered in temperate and arctic regions. Therefore, we mainly depend on our behavioral skills to live in and survive the cold.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4861193/

    Therefore, we mainly depend on our behavioral skills to live in and survive the cold.

    It is interesting that you consider this important enough to emphasize (bolding). Which kind of behavioral skills do you think are most relevant? Is intelligence one of those?

    What do you think are possible explanations for the correlation of IQ with latitude seen in Japan?

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613000949

    Thanks for your earlier references to Eppig’s work. Here is one example: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/44888621_Parasite_Prevalence_and_the_Worldwide_Distribution_of_Cognitive_Ability

    From the abstract:

    Infectious disease remains the most powerful predictor of average national IQ when temperature, distance from Africa, gross domestic product per capita and several measures of education are controlled for.

    Looking at Table 1 we see that DALY disease (the logarithm of it) and winter high temperature correlate with average IQ at -0.82 and -0.72 respectively and also correlate 0.71 with each other (both also correlate about -0.4 with the logarithm of the distance from central Africa). So evidence for the importance of disease, but hardly evidence against the importance of cold winters. An interesting question is how each would correlate with phenotypic vs. genotypic IQ if such data was available.

    Table 3 shows the results for a multiple regression model. DALY disease and winter high temperature have similar p-values. One interesting issue (uncommented on in the paper AFAICT) is that the VIF (variance inflation factor) for DALY disease is 6. Per this page a VIF of over 4 indicates multicollinearity may be a problem and requires further investigation: https://onlinecourses.science.psu.edu/stat501/node/347

    I wish they had done an ANOVA. And perhaps presented other models including different subsets of their explanatory variables.

    This excerpt from the discussion seems fairly reasonable except for “large margin” which I think is an overstatement of the results:

    Multiple regression shows that, of infectious disease, temperature, evolutionary novelty and AVED, infectious disease is the best predictor of intelligence by a large margin. The effects of years of education are not significant, while temperature and evolutionary novelty seem to have distinct predictive power beyond infectious disease. Although this model cannot rule out the independent effect of distance from central Africa, this effect is difficult to interpret because of the doubt cast on the theory underlying this variable (Wicherts et al. 2010a). Although the effects of education and GDP per capita are not statistically significant when other factors are controlled for, this is not to say that these factors are not involved. A nation of more intelligent individuals is likely to produce a higher GDP, but a wealthier nation is also more able to pay for public education, as well as public medical and sanitation services. An indirect link between education and intelligence may also exist, as a better-educated population may be more interested in public health measures—leading to increased IQ by reducing parasite stress—provided that education includes information about germ theory and hygiene. These sources of endogeneity must be considered when interpreting our findings (and see below). It should also be mentioned that we are not arguing that global variation in intelligence is only caused by parasite stress. Rather, variation in intelligence is probably caused by a variety of factors, including those we have mentioned here as well as factors that are yet unknown.

    Notice the final two sentences.

    And here is a look at temperature and IQ: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289605000917
    The paper is available at libgen. One nice feature of that paper is that Table 2 contains a listing of their data for all countries and explicitly states which IQ scores are calculated and which are estimates (and Table 4 gives correlations for both subgroups as well as all countries). That data could be handy for reproducing their analysis. It looks like it could be converted to a spreadsheet with a little effort. Perhaps I should do my own ANOVA, etc.?

    The paper PDF conveniently includes the three comments mentioned at the link above. I think the latter two provide a good sample of the arguments in play here. In particular, section 4. A concluding comment of the Hunt and Sternberg response makes clear where the “hot buttons” are.

    It is interesting to see this paper also included an Editorial note on controversial papers at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289605000954
    PDF of that is also at libgen.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    I created a spreadsheet from the Templer and Arikawa Table 2 data and added in the WHO infectious disease DALY data from the link I gave above. With that I was basically able to recreate the main results from both papers. I did some additional scatterplots looking at outliers and the most striking thing I saw was the frequency of high IQ outliers (relative to Winter mean high temp, logged DALY, and skin color) being Asian countries.

    Stepping back, I am amazed by the -0.92 correlation between skin color and IQ. Templer and Arikawa got their skin color data from https://www.amazon.it/Razze-popoli-della-Renato-Biasutti/dp/B00GZKSDBW
    Biasutti, R. (1967). Le Razze e i Popoli Della Terra. Torino, Italy: Unione pipografiza-Editrice Torinese.

    I found their reasoning intriguing:


    Skin color was conceptualized as a variable closely related to temperature. It is viewed by the present authors as a multigenerational reflection of the climates one’s ancestors have lived in for thousands of years. Another reason to predict correlations of IQ with temperature and skin color is the product–moment correlation reported by Beals, Smith, and Dodd (1984) of 0.62 between cranial capacity and distance from the equator. Beals et al. based their finding on 20,000 individual crania from every continent and representing 122 ethnically distinguishable populations. Jensen (1998) reasoned that natural selection would favor a smaller head with a less spherical shape because of better heat dissipation in hot climates. Natural selection in colder climates would favor a more spherical head to accommodate a larger brain and to have better heat conservation.

     

    Regarding DALY and infectious diseases in general, I earlier questioned how important that might have been in evolution. I'd also note that I suspect DALY correlates highly with the presence of broadly available first world medicine. Given that, how much of the observed correlation is from the reverse causal path of:
    IQ -> presence of first world medicine -> low DALY ?
    I'm pretty sure IQ can't cause (historical) cold weather so that seems like an argument in favor of the cold weather hypothesis.
    , @RaceRealist88

    Which kind of behavioral skills do you think are most relevant? Is intelligence one of those?
     
    How is intelligence defined in this conversation? Ability to adapt to novel environments? Behavioral plasticity? This was formed in Africa for us. Clothing, houses and behavioral adaptations also helped. Do those things preclude an increase in 'IQ'?

    What do you think are possible explanations for the correlation of IQ with latitude seen in Japan?
     I honestly don't know anything about Japanese history so I can't give a good answer (yes I read the paper), but I do know about Italy more (which is referenced in the paper), which Lynn has done 'IQ studies' on them using PISA data.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/11/03/northsouth-differences-in-italian-iq-is-richard-lynn-right-part-ii/

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/01/31/northsouth-differences-in-italian-iq-is-richard-lynn-right/

    Here are refs to the debate from Lynn:

    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.613.5932&rep=rep1&type=pdf

    https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/iqs-in-italy-are-higher-in-the-north-a-reply-to-felice-and-giugliano.pdf

    et al:

    https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2011-felice.pdf

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236631160_Problems_in_deriving_Italian_regional_differences_in_intelligence_from_2009_PISA_data

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223712957_The_mean_Southern_Italian_children_IQ_is_not_particularly_low_A_reply_to_R_Lynn_2010

    http://www.scienzeformazione.unipa.it/doc/225/D_Amico__Cardaci__Di_Nuovo___Naglieri_2012.pdf

    The difference doesn't come down to 'genes', there are no 'racial differences' between the North and South; lower test scores can be explained by environmental factors, re schooling.

    This is also a good response to Lynn:

    http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/17465721111175056

    If you can get the full paper (libgen isn't working for me right now), the author gives a table comparing different 'measures' of 'IQ' (PSIA and other exams), and shows that there is no difference in IQ between the north and south of Italy.

    Notice the final two sentences.
     
    I did. Did I claim that parasite load would explain the whole variation in cog ability? If I did, then I apologize.

    Here are Jensen's thoughts on Templer and Arikawa's paper:

    http://cyber.sci-hub.bz/MTAuMTAxNi9qLmludGVsbC4yMDA1LjA0LjAwMw==/10.1016%40j.intell.2005.04.003.pdf

    The main limitation of such a study design is that correlations obtained from this type of analysis are completely non-informative regarding any causal or functional connection between individual differences in skin pigmentation and individual differences in IQ, nor are they informative regarding the causal basis of the correlation, e.g., simple genetic association due to cross-assortative mating for skin color and IQ versus a pleiotropic correlation in which both of the phenotypically distinct but correlated traits are manifested by one and the same gene.

    Further, there is no relationship between any skin color genes (which there are very few of) to 'IQ genes' (to which there are 'possibly' thousands+). That should tell you it's just a correlation and doesn't really mean anything.

    And on the evidence against cold winters, there's a good Psychology Today article on that note.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. res says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    Novel problems would select for improved ability to associate only if only novel answers helped solve those problems, but I'm not sure if that is true. If the solution to "red-colored animals" is to avoid them and the solution for "large, predatory" animals is to defend/kill them, then the fact that both grey wolves and dire wolves exist doesn't necessarily select for innovative methods, but innervate around known solutions.

    From my understanding based on current neuroscience, we are aware that knowledge exists as "nodules" on nerves, which are then chunked such that they occur together in a consistent pattern; depending on the frequency of path by which a set of knowledge is used, the more innervated with white matter or myelinated that it has. Processing becomes faster and more fluid.

    So to find new solutions, some things appear to have to be there: the chunks of knowledge to be hybridized, a novel problem or objective, and some period of incubation. Some sort of idea generator motors this, possibly associated with working memory(which seems to be a set of temporary chemicals which can hold concepts); most ideas generated are totally worthless, such as dreams of walking on light or other mostly subconscious gibberish, but some reconceptualize chunks of knowledge into ways that are useful. This produces "ah hah" moments, learning and I'll say, overall creativity as well.

    This all seems to be a fairly sensitive process, such that disease load would presumably affect it quite adversely.

    This all seems to be a fairly sensitive process, such that disease load would presumably affect it quite adversely.

    Could you break down how you see this in terms of:
    1. Evolutionary pressure on intelligence.
    2. Phenotypic intelligence in individuals.

    Disease load seems much more obviously relevant to 2. than to 1. for me. However, I am interested in arguments for why disease load might affect the evolution of intelligence.

    I’ll start the ball rolling by providing one. Evolutionary pressure for metabolically expensive higher intelligence might be lessened by disease effects on phenotype resulting in the metabolic expense remaining while lessening the resultant intelligence. Put another way, a big brain which is ineffective due to disease load is still metabolically expensive (as well as retaining the pelvis size issues of big brains).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    How explain increasing of human brains still in intertropical places*
    , @Daniel Chieh
    That seems fair - and it could simply be that pressures for higher intellect might not matter in an environment of extremely high disease load; if planning is only likely to manifest as a benefit over thirty years, for example, and the average lifespan isn't that long, then it would select for disease resistance over intelligence.

    The difference might be the difference between horses that grow up being bred for, say, weight-bearing versus horses left to live in the wetlands. The latter might evolve more resistance to wet hoof disease but its extremely unlikely that they will be as strong as the former, even though strength might benefit them too. It just doesn't help them as much in the environment.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. @Daniel Chieh
    Novel problems would select for improved ability to associate only if only novel answers helped solve those problems, but I'm not sure if that is true. If the solution to "red-colored animals" is to avoid them and the solution for "large, predatory" animals is to defend/kill them, then the fact that both grey wolves and dire wolves exist doesn't necessarily select for innovative methods, but innervate around known solutions.

    From my understanding based on current neuroscience, we are aware that knowledge exists as "nodules" on nerves, which are then chunked such that they occur together in a consistent pattern; depending on the frequency of path by which a set of knowledge is used, the more innervated with white matter or myelinated that it has. Processing becomes faster and more fluid.

    So to find new solutions, some things appear to have to be there: the chunks of knowledge to be hybridized, a novel problem or objective, and some period of incubation. Some sort of idea generator motors this, possibly associated with working memory(which seems to be a set of temporary chemicals which can hold concepts); most ideas generated are totally worthless, such as dreams of walking on light or other mostly subconscious gibberish, but some reconceptualize chunks of knowledge into ways that are useful. This produces "ah hah" moments, learning and I'll say, overall creativity as well.

    This all seems to be a fairly sensitive process, such that disease load would presumably affect it quite adversely.

    Novel problems would select for improved ability to associate only if only novel answers helped solve those problems, but I’m not sure if that is true. If the solution to “red-colored animals” is to avoid them and the solution for “large, predatory” animals is to defend/kill them, then the fact that both grey wolves and dire wolves exist doesn’t necessarily select for innovative methods, but innervate around known solutions.

    Well, i think body-adaptations also can be described as ”creativity” if all novel adaptations are creative, thinking in creativity as large concept, but we are talking about human abstract thinking, predictive/cultural and not body-adaptations directly caused by long term environmental interactions/pressures.

    Nonhuman beings are selected/adapted or evolved by the environments they are. Even this process also happens among humans, ”we” have bigger awareness, if compared with other beings, of our sorrounds and may can anticipate, predict or think in ways to adapt.

    This all seems to be a fairly sensitive process, such that disease load would presumably affect it quite adversely.

    So you think it’s impossible to become smarter in high disease load*

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh

    Well, i think body-adaptations also can be described as ”creativity” if all novel adaptations are creative, thinking in creativity as large concept, but we are talking about human abstract thinking, predictive/cultural and not body-adaptations directly caused by long term environmental interactions/pressures.
     
    I was referring to cultural adaption to environmental hazards, i.e. recognizing red-hued animals as dangerous and avoiding them. To follow on this example, if you lived in a place with dangerous animals, and you came up with the idea of "stab jaguar" so you won't lose food you hunted, that's one form of simple solution to a problem. If you came up with the idea of "bang loud noises to scare animals", that's another form of a solution to a problem. If you came up with the idea of "set a fire", that's yet another.

    All of the above are examples, at some point of individual ingenuity, before they become cultural knowledge. Non-human examples of this are rare, but we do see some versions of it in macaques that teach their children to "dip sweet potatoes in seawater" to improve the taste. This was recent - it was first observed in the 1950s, whereupon parents passed on this knowledge to their children, and now is commonly done by all macaques on the island. I would say that the first macaque that thought to "dip food in seawater" exhibited creative thinking, no?

    So you think it’s impossible to become smarter in high disease load*
     
    I think the brainstem, the "reptilian brain" is an example of how evolution can "stall" if something becomes to difficult to change; its the part of the brain that controls basic functions such as heartbeat, breathing and other essential living processes. It has remained mostly throughout its development; any alteration can cause lethal results, so its why humans and primates continue to operate with a brainstem that isn't exactly optimized for a high vision-dependent lifestyle, for example.

    Likewise, I think if the learning process is as complex as illustrated above from B. Oakley's work , then disease load that might impact one or more of its parts might derail it. It wouldn't be as simple as "high disease makes dumb" but increased difficulty.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. res says:
    @RaceRealist88

    Yes, sometimes or often stop, regress OR conserve.
     
    Evolution has no direction, it's not teleological so your words are meaningless. Evolution just happens, there is no "goal" or "direction".

    OBVIOUSLY not. But no have large continental portions with temperate climate.
     
    Right but there is no one constant climate through out the continent. There are semi-wet places in Africa, but I'm not knowledgeable in that aspect. There are numerous climates and ecosystems in Africa.

    I don’t think he believed ”colder climates is more predictable”, any source* any quote*
     
    He did.

    I believe because lower termic amplitude this types of extreme climates become more predictable but respectively in different ways.
     
    Right. Subjective ways. Subjective ways that you can shoehorn things to fit what you'd like it to say.

    But temperate regions tend to be quite different than arctic or polar.
     
    But they're more similar to arctic and polar than to tropical.

    Evolution has no direction, it’s not teleological so your words are meaningless. Evolution just happens, there is no “goal” or “direction”.

    I disagree. I think it is quite meaningful (and yes I know there are philosophical quibbles) to say both of these:

    - Evolution has the goal (perhaps “result” is better?) of increasing fitness in a given environment.
    - Evolution of measurable traits within a particular group at a particular time may very well have a direction. This direction need not be constant across time or groups.

    We can argue about the details of what Santoculto said in his response to you:

    Evolution doesn’t stop.

    Yes, sometimes or often stop, regress OR conserve. I think most part of time species conserve themselves than evolve specially when they find their balance with the environment.

    But IMHO he is making a sound (and important!) point.

    The evolution of the peppered moth provides an excellent illustration of his point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution

    Do you disagree with both directional evolution of moth color and its reversal being observed?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. szopen says:
    @RaceRealist88

    If this is true, we would need at least a reasonable mechanism for this to be true – perhaps that challenges in warm or hot climates were more diverse or “novel”, in that the individual would be unprepared by rote learning or other instincts for dealing with.
     
    Dobzhansky (1950: 221) notes that “Tropical environments provide more evolutionary challenges than do the environments of temperate and cold lands."

    http://cyber.sci-hub.bz/MTAuMjMwNy8yNzgyNjMwNg==/10.2307%4027826306.pdf

    So the fact that higher intelligence evolved in Eurasia due to the extreme cold/novel environments is on shaky ground.

    Nevertheless it seems that different climates may produce differences in brain structure within a species:

    Timothy Roth et al “Variation in Hippocampal Glial Cell Numbers in Food-Caching Birds from Different Climates”
    Also, earlier (2010)
    Timoty Roth et al “Learning capabilities enhanced in harsh environments: a common garden approach”

    http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2010/05/29/rspb.2010.0630?sid=1580b0b0-1c12-4ba1-abd8-2e0bc92fd7fd

    Now, of course you would say that for food-caching birds it’s different and that pressure for having better memory is not the same as pressure for higher intelligence, and puzzles he gave to birds are not measuring, arguably, the general intelligence [1]. But given it is within-species difference and is being preserved in lab-reared birds (and hece, most likely heritable), and it’s unlikely that it’s caused by racism against chickadees from warmer climate it does seem to suggest that harsher climate may sometimes pose more challenges for at least some species, resulting in visible brain structure differences, no? The point about shorter days (hence less time for finding food) stands for humans too.

    OTOH, the “two different environmental extremes” does not seem to be very convincing.

    [1] from the 2010 paper:

    The problem-solving test involved removing galvanized steel washers (3.5 cm diameter, 1.5 cm diameter hole; roughly equal to the mass of the birds, approx. 15 g) covered with clear 3M acetate from a 3 × 5 grid of 1.5 cm wells drilled into a wooden board (40 × 18 cm) containing wax worms

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. @RaceRealist88

    Yes, sometimes or often stop, regress OR conserve.
     
    Evolution has no direction, it's not teleological so your words are meaningless. Evolution just happens, there is no "goal" or "direction".

    OBVIOUSLY not. But no have large continental portions with temperate climate.
     
    Right but there is no one constant climate through out the continent. There are semi-wet places in Africa, but I'm not knowledgeable in that aspect. There are numerous climates and ecosystems in Africa.

    I don’t think he believed ”colder climates is more predictable”, any source* any quote*
     
    He did.

    I believe because lower termic amplitude this types of extreme climates become more predictable but respectively in different ways.
     
    Right. Subjective ways. Subjective ways that you can shoehorn things to fit what you'd like it to say.

    But temperate regions tend to be quite different than arctic or polar.
     
    But they're more similar to arctic and polar than to tropical.

    Evolution has no direction, it’s not teleological so your words are meaningless. Evolution just happens, there is no “goal” or “direction”.

    yessss, BUT it’s doesn’t mean evolution is TOTALLY random, just like, a bird evolved to human in one or two generations…

    So evolution don’t stop AND no have direction…. isn’t*

    ”evolution don’t stop” = teleological*

    Right but there is no one constant climate through out the continent. There are semi-wet places in Africa, but I’m not knowledgeable in that aspect. There are numerous climates and ecosystems in Africa.

    All climates are in some degree inconstant ”or’ variable at least in its typical weather behavior but i’m talking about the more variable climate: temperate.

    Right. Subjective ways. Subjective ways that you can shoehorn things to fit what you’d like it to say.

    hmmm. No.

    Different and not subjective.

    Colder climate is constant but, well, it’s cold, the air is already deadly if you’re not adapted or protected.

    Warmer climate, equatorial or even oceanic tropical is both constant, on avg. You will not die because you breathe tropical or equatorial air itself.

    Colder climate is challenge itself, Intertropical climates no. Temperate climates combine still more biodiversity [than colder regions] and period of intense cold and bigger thermic amplitude.

    But they’re more similar to arctic and polar than to tropical.

    Maybe you are confusing temperate [oceanic and continental variants] with cold climate, intermediary between polar and temperate climate, found in places as big portions of Canada/Cucknada.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. @res

    This all seems to be a fairly sensitive process, such that disease load would presumably affect it quite adversely.
     
    Could you break down how you see this in terms of:
    1. Evolutionary pressure on intelligence.
    2. Phenotypic intelligence in individuals.

    Disease load seems much more obviously relevant to 2. than to 1. for me. However, I am interested in arguments for why disease load might affect the evolution of intelligence.

    I'll start the ball rolling by providing one. Evolutionary pressure for metabolically expensive higher intelligence might be lessened by disease effects on phenotype resulting in the metabolic expense remaining while lessening the resultant intelligence. Put another way, a big brain which is ineffective due to disease load is still metabolically expensive (as well as retaining the pelvis size issues of big brains).

    How explain increasing of human brains still in intertropical places*

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    I am not sure I understand your point. My disease load (or cold) and evolution thoughts are more concerned with differing rates. So intelligence might increase in tropical (warm and disease laden) regions, but more slowly than in colder (and less disease laden) regions.

    P.S. Here is some WHO data for DALY by country for anyone who wants it: http://apps.who.int/gho/data/view.main.ENVDALYSBYCOUNTRYv
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. res says:
    @Santoculto
    How explain increasing of human brains still in intertropical places*

    I am not sure I understand your point. My disease load (or cold) and evolution thoughts are more concerned with differing rates. So intelligence might increase in tropical (warm and disease laden) regions, but more slowly than in colder (and less disease laden) regions.

    P.S. Here is some WHO data for DALY by country for anyone who wants it: http://apps.who.int/gho/data/view.main.ENVDALYSBYCOUNTRYv

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Increase of brain size has been a marker of increase of human intelligence and humans have evolved firstly, what we know, in intertropical places, with higher infectious disease load. I'm talking about first increase of brain size/intelligence since first proto-humans.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. @Santoculto

    Novel problems would select for improved ability to associate only if only novel answers helped solve those problems, but I’m not sure if that is true. If the solution to “red-colored animals” is to avoid them and the solution for “large, predatory” animals is to defend/kill them, then the fact that both grey wolves and dire wolves exist doesn’t necessarily select for innovative methods, but innervate around known solutions.
     
    Well, i think body-adaptations also can be described as ''creativity'' if all novel adaptations are creative, thinking in creativity as large concept, but we are talking about human abstract thinking, predictive/cultural and not body-adaptations directly caused by long term environmental interactions/pressures.

    Nonhuman beings are selected/adapted or evolved by the environments they are. Even this process also happens among humans, ''we'' have bigger awareness, if compared with other beings, of our sorrounds and may can anticipate, predict or think in ways to adapt.

    This all seems to be a fairly sensitive process, such that disease load would presumably affect it quite adversely.
     
    So you think it's impossible to become smarter in high disease load*

    Well, i think body-adaptations also can be described as ”creativity” if all novel adaptations are creative, thinking in creativity as large concept, but we are talking about human abstract thinking, predictive/cultural and not body-adaptations directly caused by long term environmental interactions/pressures.

    I was referring to cultural adaption to environmental hazards, i.e. recognizing red-hued animals as dangerous and avoiding them. To follow on this example, if you lived in a place with dangerous animals, and you came up with the idea of “stab jaguar” so you won’t lose food you hunted, that’s one form of simple solution to a problem. If you came up with the idea of “bang loud noises to scare animals”, that’s another form of a solution to a problem. If you came up with the idea of “set a fire”, that’s yet another.

    All of the above are examples, at some point of individual ingenuity, before they become cultural knowledge. Non-human examples of this are rare, but we do see some versions of it in macaques that teach their children to “dip sweet potatoes in seawater” to improve the taste. This was recent – it was first observed in the 1950s, whereupon parents passed on this knowledge to their children, and now is commonly done by all macaques on the island. I would say that the first macaque that thought to “dip food in seawater” exhibited creative thinking, no?

    So you think it’s impossible to become smarter in high disease load*

    I think the brainstem, the “reptilian brain” is an example of how evolution can “stall” if something becomes to difficult to change; its the part of the brain that controls basic functions such as heartbeat, breathing and other essential living processes. It has remained mostly throughout its development; any alteration can cause lethal results, so its why humans and primates continue to operate with a brainstem that isn’t exactly optimized for a high vision-dependent lifestyle, for example.

    Likewise, I think if the learning process is as complex as illustrated above from B. Oakley’s work , then disease load that might impact one or more of its parts might derail it. It wouldn’t be as simple as “high disease makes dumb” but increased difficulty.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto

    I was referring to cultural adaption to environmental hazards, i.e. recognizing red-hued animals as dangerous and avoiding them. To follow on this example, if you lived in a place with dangerous animals, and you came up with the idea of “stab jaguar” so you won’t lose food you hunted, that’s one form of simple solution to a problem. If you came up with the idea of “bang loud noises to scare animals”, that’s another form of a solution to a problem. If you came up with the idea of “set a fire”, that’s yet another.
     
    Ok, i understood now.

    All of the above are examples, at some point of individual ingenuity, before they become cultural knowledge. Non-human examples of this are rare, but we do see some versions of it in macaques that teach their children to “dip sweet potatoes in seawater” to improve the taste. This was recent – it was first observed in the 1950s, whereupon parents passed on this knowledge to their children, and now is commonly done by all macaques on the island. I would say that the first macaque that thought to “dip food in seawater” exhibited creative thinking, no?
     
    Yes, for sure.

    ''Likewise, I think if the learning process is as complex as illustrated above from B. Oakley’s work , then disease load that might impact one or more of its parts might derail it. It wouldn’t be as simple as “high disease makes dumb” but increased difficulty.''

    Even i don't doubt that disease load have some impact i doubt if it will be significant at the point to be the most important factor, of course, i'm totally open to change my views if it is proved.

    There is ongoing the process of patologization of lower cognitive skills exactly as if is a disease or a mental condition.

    Maybe we can debate that when the organism is exposed to more micro-invaders it tend to extra-adapt against them [and with less time to evolve to higher intelligence] while in less micro-populated places, organisms, i mean, all or majority, will be more free to evolve, less dependent, with a less factor to worry. We have a very common trends or correlation between load disease and intelligence among other species** It's a universal trend*
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. Pat Boyle says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    The idea that only the "classic gun" design would define the gunpowder age doesn't seem consistent with the observation that the Ottoman Empire was using cannons and bombards effectively as siege weapons on a consistent basis as far back as the 1420s; while it didn't make all walls instantly obsolete, it would be hard to argue that the siege of Constantinople didn't impress upon the world that a fundamental shift in warfare had occurred.

    I don’t see how your remarks are in opposition to mine. Perhaps I was unclear. Constantinople and Harfluer were sieges in the fifteenth century where guns and gunpowder played a crucial part. That was my point. The Chinese had used their resources of saltpeter when mixed with honey to create a series of fireworks. This was quite early but it did not lead directly to the guns and gunpowder that knocked down fortress walls or that led to hand cannons and small arms.

    Gunpowder was all over Europe in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries but it wasn’t of much use because it had poor properties for a battlefield weapon. Mix up a batch of homemade black powder and carry it around all day in your powder horn and when you go to use it will have separated again and be useless.

    True gunpowder is not just a simple mixture. It was a manufactured product made in royally authorized factories. The state kept tight control over the manufacturing of real (corned) gunpowder. Part of the process is to make cakes and then grind them up to the proper consistency for particular kinds of gunpowder. If you are careless in grinding – boom.

    Military historians generally credit the Italian campaign of Charles VIII as ending the high walls style of fortifications which had been the standard means of defending against the enemy since Jericho. This campaign signaled the start of the Gunpowder Era. You can trace when gunpowder came to a region by their style of walls. Note that The Great Wall of China while begun in Chin Zeaundi’s rein before Christ, it was still being built until the seventeenth century (the part Nixon and the tourists visit). No major new fortifications were built that way in Europe so late.

    So you might say that The Great Wall of China proves that China did not invent gunpowder. (Maybe that’s a bit to strong a statement).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    What are your thoughts as to this?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_gunpowder#Chinese_wall_theory
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. Pat Boyle says:
    @utu
    People who like to think China invented gunpowder have sloppy thought processes.

    To acquire facts no thought process is necessary. The fact is that gunpowder was invented in China. Retain this fact and use your though process for something more useful.

    You have a funny notion of what constitutes a ‘fact’. The idea that the Chinese invented gunpowder is popular in the popular press but not in the serious literature. Pleas read some military history. And please consider other ‘inventions’. You are not just wrong – you are impolite.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  192. @res
    I am not sure I understand your point. My disease load (or cold) and evolution thoughts are more concerned with differing rates. So intelligence might increase in tropical (warm and disease laden) regions, but more slowly than in colder (and less disease laden) regions.

    P.S. Here is some WHO data for DALY by country for anyone who wants it: http://apps.who.int/gho/data/view.main.ENVDALYSBYCOUNTRYv

    Increase of brain size has been a marker of increase of human intelligence and humans have evolved firstly, what we know, in intertropical places, with higher infectious disease load. I’m talking about first increase of brain size/intelligence since first proto-humans.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    ... in places with higher infectious disease-load, i want to mean that seems, this factor don't prevent early human intelligence evolution.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. Pat Boyle says:
    @Jason Liu
    All historical evidence shows gunpowder came to Europe from the East. As did gunpowder weapons.

    What you say is ahistorical. Saltpeter is not as common in Europe as it is in China and India. It is certainly true that saltpeter was exploited in the East long before it was in the West. But gunpowder is a specific manufactured product that was invented in fifteenth century Europe.

    True gunpowder – that powder-like substance that was useful in guns – was in most places a royal monopoly made in purpose made factories. It’s exact manufacturing process was kept a state secret. China had made saltpeter and honey fireworks many centuries earlier, but that was not gunpowder.

    Joseph Needham a virulently anti American communist may be the source of a lot of this pro-Chinese propaganda. China has probably been the most advanced civilization for most of history and may be again. The Chinese seem to do real well on IQ tests normalized on Europeans. And it is certainly true that China before the fifteenth century had many if not most of the important inventions made anywhere. But the Chinese did not invent everything. They did not invent gunpowder unless you torture the definition of the term “invent”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    You seem to have responded to everyone on this topic but me (comment 149).

    It seems to me you are playing "No True Gunpowder" here.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Gunpowder_Age
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_lance

    I of course have no argument with your assertions about the importance of European contributions to firearm and cannon technology and the resultant effects on fortifications. It's just that those were not the invention of gunpowder.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  194. @Daniel Chieh

    Well, i think body-adaptations also can be described as ”creativity” if all novel adaptations are creative, thinking in creativity as large concept, but we are talking about human abstract thinking, predictive/cultural and not body-adaptations directly caused by long term environmental interactions/pressures.
     
    I was referring to cultural adaption to environmental hazards, i.e. recognizing red-hued animals as dangerous and avoiding them. To follow on this example, if you lived in a place with dangerous animals, and you came up with the idea of "stab jaguar" so you won't lose food you hunted, that's one form of simple solution to a problem. If you came up with the idea of "bang loud noises to scare animals", that's another form of a solution to a problem. If you came up with the idea of "set a fire", that's yet another.

    All of the above are examples, at some point of individual ingenuity, before they become cultural knowledge. Non-human examples of this are rare, but we do see some versions of it in macaques that teach their children to "dip sweet potatoes in seawater" to improve the taste. This was recent - it was first observed in the 1950s, whereupon parents passed on this knowledge to their children, and now is commonly done by all macaques on the island. I would say that the first macaque that thought to "dip food in seawater" exhibited creative thinking, no?

    So you think it’s impossible to become smarter in high disease load*
     
    I think the brainstem, the "reptilian brain" is an example of how evolution can "stall" if something becomes to difficult to change; its the part of the brain that controls basic functions such as heartbeat, breathing and other essential living processes. It has remained mostly throughout its development; any alteration can cause lethal results, so its why humans and primates continue to operate with a brainstem that isn't exactly optimized for a high vision-dependent lifestyle, for example.

    Likewise, I think if the learning process is as complex as illustrated above from B. Oakley's work , then disease load that might impact one or more of its parts might derail it. It wouldn't be as simple as "high disease makes dumb" but increased difficulty.

    I was referring to cultural adaption to environmental hazards, i.e. recognizing red-hued animals as dangerous and avoiding them. To follow on this example, if you lived in a place with dangerous animals, and you came up with the idea of “stab jaguar” so you won’t lose food you hunted, that’s one form of simple solution to a problem. If you came up with the idea of “bang loud noises to scare animals”, that’s another form of a solution to a problem. If you came up with the idea of “set a fire”, that’s yet another.

    Ok, i understood now.

    All of the above are examples, at some point of individual ingenuity, before they become cultural knowledge. Non-human examples of this are rare, but we do see some versions of it in macaques that teach their children to “dip sweet potatoes in seawater” to improve the taste. This was recent – it was first observed in the 1950s, whereupon parents passed on this knowledge to their children, and now is commonly done by all macaques on the island. I would say that the first macaque that thought to “dip food in seawater” exhibited creative thinking, no?

    Yes, for sure.

    ”Likewise, I think if the learning process is as complex as illustrated above from B. Oakley’s work , then disease load that might impact one or more of its parts might derail it. It wouldn’t be as simple as “high disease makes dumb” but increased difficulty.”

    Even i don’t doubt that disease load have some impact i doubt if it will be significant at the point to be the most important factor, of course, i’m totally open to change my views if it is proved.

    There is ongoing the process of patologization of lower cognitive skills exactly as if is a disease or a mental condition.

    Maybe we can debate that when the organism is exposed to more micro-invaders it tend to extra-adapt against them [and with less time to evolve to higher intelligence] while in less micro-populated places, organisms, i mean, all or majority, will be more free to evolve, less dependent, with a less factor to worry. We have a very common trends or correlation between load disease and intelligence among other species** It’s a universal trend*

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  195. @Santoculto
    Increase of brain size has been a marker of increase of human intelligence and humans have evolved firstly, what we know, in intertropical places, with higher infectious disease load. I'm talking about first increase of brain size/intelligence since first proto-humans.

    … in places with higher infectious disease-load, i want to mean that seems, this factor don’t prevent early human intelligence evolution.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  196. Pat Boyle says:
    @RaceRealist88

    You are patronizing the readership. Most of us took Latin in school and many of us took formal logic.
     
    Who is "many of us" and how do you know that? The comment was for Santoculto, who I'm 99 percent sure didn't know that fallacy.

    The fallacy part is when you assume that you have proven causality when you merely demonstrate precedence. No one is doing that here.
     
    Santoculto wrote:

    humans were exposed to cold regions and became smarter

    So yes, someone did do that. "X happened before Y" (cold winter happened before increase in intelligence)".


    The ‘cold winter makes intelligence’ hypothesis is just that – a hypothesis, and one that I think is likely wrong. It seems simplistic and wrong to me but it isn’t a fallacy.
     
    Yea it kinda is.

    "P1: X happened before Y.
    P2: (unstated) Y was caused by something (that happened before Y).
    C1: Therefore, X caused Y"

    P1: Cold winter happened before increase in IQ/intelligence
    P2: IQ/intelligence increases were caused by something (that happened before the intelligence increase)
    C1: Therefore, cold winters caused higher IQ/intelligence

    I agree that CWT is wrong, and if you say that X caused Y, that's a fallacy.

    Santoculto was simply referring to a common theory why the peoples who left Africa and went north also became smart. The theory may be wrong of course but it isn’t a logical fallacy. He is probably in the majority. Many anthropologists believe the same.

    You’re right. Maybe Latin is less well understood by the readership than I presumed. But the intelligence of the readership of this blog is very high. I’m always learning something new here.

    I remember quoting – Post quo, ergo propter quo – to a sergeant who was teaching a class in Basic Training. I had trouble in the Army.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Okechukwu

    Santoculto was simply referring to a common theory why the peoples who left Africa and went north also became smart. The theory may be wrong of course but it isn’t a logical fallacy. He is probably in the majority. Many anthropologists believe the same.
     
    Then name a single credible anthropologist that believes that nonsense.

    Please stop making stuff up. It's painful to see, particularly as what you're claiming is so demonstrably wrong.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  197. res says:
    @Pat Boyle
    What you say is ahistorical. Saltpeter is not as common in Europe as it is in China and India. It is certainly true that saltpeter was exploited in the East long before it was in the West. But gunpowder is a specific manufactured product that was invented in fifteenth century Europe.

    True gunpowder - that powder-like substance that was useful in guns - was in most places a royal monopoly made in purpose made factories. It's exact manufacturing process was kept a state secret. China had made saltpeter and honey fireworks many centuries earlier, but that was not gunpowder.

    Joseph Needham a virulently anti American communist may be the source of a lot of this pro-Chinese propaganda. China has probably been the most advanced civilization for most of history and may be again. The Chinese seem to do real well on IQ tests normalized on Europeans. And it is certainly true that China before the fifteenth century had many if not most of the important inventions made anywhere. But the Chinese did not invent everything. They did not invent gunpowder unless you torture the definition of the term "invent".

    You seem to have responded to everyone on this topic but me (comment 149).

    It seems to me you are playing “No True Gunpowder” here.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Gunpowder_Age

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_lance

    I of course have no argument with your assertions about the importance of European contributions to firearm and cannon technology and the resultant effects on fortifications. It’s just that those were not the invention of gunpowder.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    I'll respond to you and everyone else tonight. Wifi at the place I'm at at the moment is screwy and I don't like typing long comments where I have to keep looking back and forth at different things in mobile.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  198. @Daniel Chieh

    Evolution has no direction, it’s not teleological so your words are meaningless. Evolution just happens, there is no “goal” or “direction”.

     

    What would you call happened in Rat Utopia?

    What would you call happened in Rat Utopia?

    I don’t know what that is.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    https://infogalactic.com/info/Behavioral_sink
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  199. Okechukwu says:
    @K-Drama Kumiho
    Okechukwu, the Once and Future Kang, writes:

    Korea was a primitive stone age society before and during the Korean war.
     
    "Stone Age" is a concept with an actual anthropological meaning. Koreans had been working metal for over two thousand years, so we were not "stone age" by definition. The pettiness and desperation of your insult speaks for itself. This outburst puts the rest of your gratuitous anti-Korean remarks in perspective.

    Conversely, Asians were free in their own countries. They were not subjected to debilitating and dehumanizing oppression. Yet they produced nothing. They created nothing. They invented nothing.
     
    Apparently you need pointed out to you that history did not just begin when Europeans began to exert an influence in Subsahran Africa.

    Your statement about Asian history shows laughable ignorance of European colonialism and influence in Asia, as well as gross ignorance of devastating intra-Asian conflict.

    And by "created nothing" and "invented nothing" you mean aside from gunpowder, paper, the compass, the mechanical clock, smelting, silk production, various agricultural innovations, and on and on.


    When I said that a mere handful of Black Americans have invented and innovated more modern technology that all of Asia combined, I meant it.
     
    Well,I posted links with dozens of Asian inventions, discoveries, and Nobel laureates, plus a general measure of per capita scientific output via peer-reviewed publications. You named four African-Americans.

    None of which were developed organically in Korea by Koreans. You’re the one reaping the benefits of the work and toil of others.
     
    Wow, talk about a shameless double-standard. Your African-Americans are given full, undivided credit by you, despite working in an overwhelmingly white context, but Koreans get no credit for our contributions. Could you look any more bitter and desperate?

    …why would admixed blacks be far more intelligent, far more inventive and far more innovative than fully 100% whites and Asians?
     
    Your very question just shows you don't understand how group averages work versus the status of any given individual, nor grasp how admixture could impact genetically-regulated behavior.

    It's not worth engaging you further. You seem to exemplify the "We wuz Kangz" mentality.


    In fact in light of your moribund performance, it’s not inconceivable that Africans will surpass you in the not too distant future.
     
    Q.E.D.

    Okechukwu, the Once and Future Kang, writes:

    You’re the one exhibiting a kang mentality. You’re the one emotionally overwrought because I am loathe to endorse your hilariously misplaced superiority complex. You seem to be pleading for affirmation in hopes of ameliorating personal failings. People of your ilk are actually an interesting psychological study. It’s a psychosis wrapped up in low self-esteem, perhaps post-traumatic stress of some kind, or perhaps unrealized ambition which ultimately segues into scapegoating.

    “Stone Age” is a concept with an actual anthropological meaning. Koreans had been working metal for over two thousand years, so we were not “stone age” by definition.

    Yeah, I realize that Koreans weren’t literally a Neolithic people. Of course stone age in this context was a figure of speech.

    The pettiness and desperation of your insult speaks for itself. This outburst puts the rest of your gratuitous anti-Korean remarks in perspective.

    But my posts are defensive and reactive. You’re the initiating offender to whom I’m responding. I did apologize to all decent Asians prior to ripping you to shreds.

    Apparently you need pointed out to you that history did not just begin when Europ