RSS
See also: J. Philippe Rushton’s VDARE.com Archive
When the British-Canadian psychologist J. Philippe Rushton(1943-2012) proved—almost 30 years ago—that blacks are evolved to “live fast and die young,” he was threatened with prosecution, declared a “loony” by Ontario’s Attorney General, and forced to conduct his University of Western Ontario lectures via video to avoid disruption and violence. Perhaps something has changed for the better since 1989: a study published this week by a group of British researchers, further proving Rushton’s argument, has been reported in the Main Stream Media with no threat to the lives of the academics involved at all. [Dementia rates higher among black people, new study finds, By Alex Matthews-King, Independent, August 8, 2018]
The scientists, based at the prestigious University College London, used a sample of 2.5 million UK residents, including over 66,000 dementia patients. They found that, of all the races in the UK, blacks have the highest rates of dementia. [Trends in dementia diagnosis rates in UK ethnic groups: analysis of UK primary care data,By T.M. Pham et al., Clinical Epidemiology, August 8, 2018]
Rushton presented, back in 1989, and in more detail in his subsequent book Race, Evolution and Behavior, his “Differential-K Theory” of racial differences. He argued that all species—and all subspecies—are positioned on a spectrum between a “fast Life History strategy” (an r-strategy) and a “slow Life History strategy” (a K-strategy).
An r-strategy develops in unstable yet easy environment. In such an ecology, you could be wiped out at any moment, so you evolve to “live fast and die young.” Accordingly, you invest all your energy in mating—in order to have as many offspring as possible with as many partners as possible i n the hope that some will survive. You invest very little energy in nurture, because such energy could easily go to waste.
This r-strategy is reflected in every aspect of your “life history”—you’re born younger, you reach developmental milestones younger, you go through puberty younger, lose your virginity younger, you age more quickly and you die younger. You also advertise your genetic quality as conspicuously as you can—as the end is always nigh—leading to large sexual characteristics, strong body odor, and, if you’re a peacock, a massive, colorful tail.
As the environment becomes more stable and also harsher, the carrying capacity for the species is reached. So, its members start competing more against each other to survive. In such a harsh but predictable context, if you invest all your energy in mating then you may find that all of your offspring die. So there develops an arms-race where the species becomes increasingly adapted to the (predictable) ecology. It does this by learning about the ecology and learning how to cooperate; by becoming more intelligent. Such that the offspring can learn about the environment and how to cooperate, the “life history speed” begins to slow down. Parents invest more energy in nurture of a (smaller number of) offspring and less energy in mating. They go for “quality over quantity.”
As they become more K-strategy, in a stable environment where they can trust that tomorrow will come, litters become smaller, offspring are born later, they develop more slowly, they go through puberty later (learning a great deal in their long childhood), they lose their virginity later, they age more slowly and, for genetic reasons, they die older, giving them more time to pass on their genes.
Rushton showed that what he called the “three Big Races” occupy different positions on the r-K spectrum. Northeast Asians are the most K-evolved, Caucasians (a combination of Europeans, South Asians, Arabs and North Africans) are intermediate and Blacks are the most r-evolved.
So the finding of these University of London-based scholars is just as Rushton’s theory would predict. Blacks age more quickly and they therefore go through dementia more quickly. Being less intelligent than whites (as part of their r-strategy), they will have used their brains less—less reading, smaller vocabulary, less practice at remembering details – meaning that the process of decline to a child-like level will be faster. And, likely due to the higher self-esteem and low trust levels that accompany low IQ, blacks—the UCL researchers found—are far slower than whites to seek medical help, in a country with entirely free healthcare.
The “Windrush Generation”—named after the ship that brought the first mass immigration of blacks to England in 1948—who are now in their 80s and 90s, have not only given Britain Balkanization, race riots and declining IQ, but a massive social care bill for dementia as well.
Indeed, a recent book by Dr Edward Dutton, J. Philippe Rushton: A Life History Perspective, critiques and extends Rushton’s model and examining why it was he who came up with such a brilliantly original theory—has highlighted evidence of exactly the phenomenon in the USA. It shows that on numerous measures which Rushton didn’t look at—dementia, age at menopause, standards of beauty, even smelliness of ear wax, as a way of quickly conveying how good your genes are—Rushton’s model works.
Dutton’s book makes sense of anomalies with the model, arguing that as a group becomes more K-selected, it becomes more evolved to an extremely specific niche. This means that—to become adapted to that specific niche—the different K-traits (intelligence, age at puberty etc.) become less strongly connected, explaining, for example, why the high K Japanese seem to have very little interest in adopting children, despite this being “nurture for nurture’s sake.”
The book observes that Rushton himself was a highly intelligent r-strategist—reflected in illegitimate children, affairs, and even academic corner-cutting—but it stresses that this is what geniuses are like: it’s what Einstein was like, and Rushton was a kind of border-line genius.
Dutton also finds anomalies when extending that theory to narrower but genetically justifiable racial gradations, such as Native Americans or South Asians; the latter losing their virginity later than whites, partly because they are more religious, though generally more r-selected.
The UCL study implicitly highlights the same issue with extending Rushton’s model. Black men of the same age are 28% more likely than white men to have dementia. However, South Asian men are 12% less likely than white men to have dementia, with some studies having found that South Asian low dementia rates are for genetic reasons.
Clearly, then, there are anomalies in Rushton’s model. But the new UCL study suggests that he made an excellent start.
How ironic then that, in January, UCL bureaucrats professed to be outraged to find that an honorary professor, Dr James Thompson, had held the London Conference On Intelligence there for three years—with presentations exactly on such subjects such as blacks having a faster Life History Strategy than whites. Despite the new study’s relatively quiet reception—so far—how long true research can be conducted in the modern Politically Correct academy remains a question.
Lance Welton [Email him] is the pen name of a freelance journalist living in New York.
Why Is Barbados So Civilized?
https://www.unz.com/isteve/why-is-barbados-so-civilized/#comment-1956532
– https://www.unz.com/jthompson/scrabbling-for-excellence/#comment-1911084
– https://www.unz.com/article/investigating-a-great-though-flawed-investigator/#comment-2441009
The r-K theory of black-white “life history” outcome differences is fascinating. What percentage of blacks are “weeds” and what percentage of whites are “weeds”? Is it 70/30 as many have suggested? Are the two groups truly offset by a full standard deviation?
Bearing twins is not very K-selected in humans but neoteny is. A female who achieves sexual maturity early is neotenous, a K-selected trait. Black females achieve sexual maturity earlier than white females, by about a year. Which race is more neotenous and which is more K-selected?
Rushton seems to have been living fast for 50 years as far as mating went.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:African-American_supercentenarians
They are very common
https://www.newsweek.com/how-stop-aging-naked-mole-rats-do-not-get-old-and-could-hold-clues-extending-794141
Blacks are very good at rote memorization, for example learning to put names to new faces.
Black have large penes, but relatively small testicles. They can’t grow good beards either
Whenever I see Blacks in London they are always muttering and mumbling to themselves, is this an early sign of Dementia?
No.
So you’re ignorant on this subject. OK fair enough. Let me explain it to you. Neoteny is the retention of child-like traits in the adult. If traits characteristic of the child are adaptative in the adults of a species, neoteny will come under selection. Similarly when traits of the adult (like sexual maturity) become adaptative in the child, neoteny is at work. Got it? Early sexual maturity is a classic example of the phenomenon known as neoteny.
There’s a significant problem with that study (Pham et al): 55% of the dementia-patient data had no record of race – from p953 –
A question for those playing at home: what does the race carve-up of that ‘no-race’ 55% have to be, in order for the black dementia rate to have an IRR with a 95% confidence interval that includes 1? (That is, makes black dementia rates statistically indistinguishable from white rates).
The answer involves a wee bit of tedious algebra (we should all be suspicious of algebra – it’s a Muzzie concept, the dusky blighters).
You need to know the race proportions of that portion of the total sample (i.e., dementia and non-dementia) whose race was not recorded; that was 53%.
So now we have 2df (degrees of freedom aka degrees of fakery): the racial makeup of the missing dementia patients, and the racial makeup of the missing non-dementia patients.
Given that there are only 315 black datapoints in the dementia patients, a 1% disparity between the ‘dementia, no race but actually black‘ and the ‘no dementia, no race but actually black‘ would overturn the conclusions.
Sadly, this is not the peg on which to hang Rushton’s hat.
As it happens, I am of the view that Rushton was on to something (I am also of the view that it doesn’t matter a damn anyhow).
Anyone who has met any decent number of Polynesians has abundant evidence of chunky, happy, short-horizon folks who kark it relatively early.
Conversely, anyone who’s met enough sourpusses from the Ice People (Scandos, Saxons, Rus, Celts etc) has equally-abundant evidence of people prepared to grit their teeth and eke out a gruelling life of want, for fuck-all return.
Let’s face it: in any society, the overwhelming majority of people are peasants (or their socioeconomic equivalent).
Would you rather have 50 or 60 years as a Polynesian ‘peasant’ where a hard day involves a coconut that is particularly hard to reach, or 70 years as a Russian peasant, where a hard day means everybody dies within a week? Fuck that.
Maybe 75 years as an American or UK peasant – surrounded by shit you can’t afford, stuffed to the gills with food that comes in colours that don’t occur in nature? Fuck that, too.
If you’re just a normal schlub, what are you going to do with those extra 20 years?
If you’re a Yank, Pom, Aussie (you get it – Western), he answer is ‘fuck all: complain that the grandkids never visit, or that they have shit tattoos‘.
For the Russkie, the answer is – scrabble away on relatively infertile ground, eking out a subsistence level of output that results in adult male BMIs of 13 – i.e., if everyone takes their shirt off they could re-enact a Holocaust photo.
We get a brief spark of existence between two unimaginably gigantic voids – billions of years passed before we coalesced into a knot of complexity; we get to play games that we pretend are crucially, existentially important for 100 years, tops; then we kark it and billions of years will pass afterwards.
In two hundred years the only people who will know (or care) who we were, will be descendants with personality disorders; in ten thousand years it’s absolutely guaranteed that nobody will give a fuck whether Rushton was right.
Having worked several years in an American city full of blacks, I was always a bit perplexed by the stereotypes of blacks aging better (to be fair, it’s almost only black people that ever say this). Does mixed-race Halle Berry look good for 50 or whatever she is? Sure. But the I was stunned at how many blacks I worked with and around, looked so old for their age. Go to any rural town with a large proportion of white women, even if not “pretty”, and you will find plenty that look fit and good (like Elizabeth Hurley)
While working in this urban area, it was not uncommon for co-workers who were white or Hispanic, to routinely miscalculate the presumed age of blacks, in daily interactions (talking about kids, parents, grandparents, life in general). A black female you assumed was 40, and not just because she had lots of kids–you got that–, turns out to be 29…black males you work with that look seriously rough, haggard, tell you one day in small talk “naw man, I’m 31”. I learned to make no presumptions.
Blacks almost always look older, particularly their faces, and for black females they tend to be very overweight by 35. I have no idea where this American stereotype started, but it seems to be something blacks really believe–despite no one else perceiving them that way. Even studies have shown whites tend to think blacks are older than they are. (that may be due to race differences in perceiving facial lines, expressions).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoteny
“Having worked several years in an American city full of blacks, I was always a bit perplexed by the stereotypes of blacks aging better (to be fair, it’s almost only black people that ever say this).”
What black people and Asian people are usually talking about when they say that blacks or Asians “age better” is skin.
It is factually true that Negroids and Mongoloids tend to have skin that is thicker than Caucasoids on average. They also have more natural protection against UV radiation. Therefore, Negroids and Mongoloids tend to have skin that looks chubbier, plumper, and smoother, with fewer fine lines and wrinkles. I have not seen scientific data regarding the secretion of sebum, but I am almost certain that the skin of Negroids and Mongoloids tends to secrete a greater amount of sebum because their skin almost invariably appears moister and glossier than the skin of Caucasoids.
The aforementioned racial variation coexists with sexual dimorphism: both thickness of the skin and oiliness of the skin are not only Negroid/Mongoloid traits, but also masculine traits in humans.
OK sure, even as there are differences between individual people, there can surely be small average differences between races. And there is a lot of physiology indicating that, yes, blacks tend to mature faster, they are stronger and have more active metabolisms, and they tend not to age as well. Sure. But the bottom line is that, if you look at history, the whole “r” vs. “K” thing is almost completely cultural and political.
Right now, the Swedes are definitely following a “K” strategy. They have small numbers of children that they take good care of. But only about 120 years ago – an historical eye blink – they had like 8 kids each and the place was a miserably poor hellhole, a lot like modern Haiti. This is not some ivory tower reality-denying sociological theory – this is real objective history.
Right now the Yemenis are having like 7 kids each, and the place is of course miserably poor (the bombing by the Saudis etc. is largely irrelevant – it’s just making the rubble bounce). And yet, after slavery had ended, American blacks have historically had on average about as many children as Americans of all races, usually around 2 (why do you think that, if you ignore recent immigrants from Africa or the Caribbean, American blacks are still hardly more then 10% of the population?).
I could go on. Modern Japanese are very much “K” strategy – but before WWII, they were very much “r” strategy.
And it can go the other way. Less than a century ago Mexico was doing really well – and the elites deliberately encouraged large families, they gave medals to women with six kids, and fertility rates shot up, and as expected poverty rose. So Mexico went from “K” to “r” – and that was political, not genetic.
And lets not reverse cause and effect – we often hear that people in poor countries need to have large numbers of children because many will die in infancy. But couldn’t it be, that many of these children die, because their parents had too many of them? It might not be the environment that creates the need for large numbers of children, but the behavior of the parents.
So yes, there is strong evidence for differences between the races. And these differences might actually have a non-trivial political and economic consequence. But as far as “r” vs “K” the historical record is overwhelming that this is cultural and political.
The skin type you describe here:
Is the opposite of masculine.
Furthermore, “Negroid/Mongoloid” skin isn’t oiler than Caucasoids:
https://www.derm.theclinics.com/article/S0733-8635(18)30645-4/abstract
“Mongoloid” skin is quite different from Negroid skin in several metrics; one od which is pore count:
Pore density and size are of course greater in males than females, and a great contributor to the “plumpness” and “smoothness” of skin (which really has nothing to do with skin thickness).
Your claim that Asians have thicker skin than whites is not supported by the data. Let’s look at the charts:
Skin thickness measurements of White Americans
Skin thickness measurements of Japanese (“Mongoloid”)
As we can see, the skin thickness of normal American white males is greater than that of Japanese males. In fact, white American females score higher than the Japanese males in a few landmarks.
Perhaps what you are really thinking about is fat. The East Asians definitely have a higher percentage of fat on their body, relative to lean muscle mass.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3098253/
And another troll materializes from the aether…
If the skin of Blacks and Asians really does not secrete more sebum, then why do they so obviously have greasier-looking skin than Whites? Do you contend that my impression is a false one?
This is also an outstanding analysis, which covers huge swaths of information and data on population and demography dynamics and differences:
– https://www.unz.com/forum/why-the-alt-right-loves-single-payer-health-care/#comment-1830739
Several significant US minority groups live much longer
If you don’t believe genes or subtle cultural/lifestyle differences can yield large systematic differences in mortality rates, how do you explain this?
[…]
Why is it that Latinos, a statistically poor and not particularly well insured group, significantly outlive europeans in Europe even in some generally mediocre states vis-a-vis white and black life expectancy if the health system is presumably to blame for abbreviated lives? Why do we find low income asians and latinos significantly outliving whites and, especially, blacks in California?
Conclusion
Although I am certainly receptive to the mounting evidence that genetic differences can cause large differences in health outcomes and may explain at least some of these group differences (race/ethnicity, specific european ancestry, SES, etc), it also seems highly likely that most of these differences are channeled through behavior (diet, lifestyle, etc) and that culture can have a large influence here (which we don’t really find with, say, general cognitive ability). These behaviors are bound to have substantial spillover effects beyond the individual, the family, or even immediate neighbors through its effects on schools, crime, traffic, cuisine, and more. These effects almost certainly flow both ways. This makes them very difficult to begin to solve or even discuss in polite company today. Blacks influence whites; whites influence blacks; borders influence non-borderers; rich -> poor; poor -> rich and so on and so forth.
Yeah, but white people and their racism be making them crazy, so you got jack.
Sebum is produced by testosterone and DHT, which I believe are lower among Asians. I believe blacks tend to have high rates of prostate cancer due to high DHT. Also DHT and sebum are tied to male pattern baldness, which tends to be lower among Asians.
Yes, I would say your opinion isn’t worth much. Your idea that blacks and Asians have greasier skin is meaningless because blacks and Asians are more culturally inclined to use skin lubricants and moisturizers. Blacks, in particular, because of their well known tendency to have dry, “ashy” skin in many New World climates, are notorious for their use of cocoa/shea butter.
As for Asians; they have a bizarre “skin culture” that recalls the character Buffalo Bill in “The Silence of the Lambs“. They specifically try to make their skin look oily and “dewy”, by applying a plethora of agents to it. Most of the Koreans I know literally slather themselves with vaseline before going to bed (I live in a Korean neighborhood in New Jersey).
https://www.bustle.com/p/what-is-glass-skin-this-k-beauty-trend-is-about-to-be-everywhere-2343861
So even if Asians and Blacks are said to appear to have “oilier” skin; it isn’t because their skin is naturally oilier or more sebaceous than Caucasoids. It’s because they have a culture that is quite frankly disturbingly obsessed with human skin, and they religiously apply oils, hydraters and the like to their bodies. White people on the other hand don’t even use oils or creams to begin with. The actual science which has measured the sebaceous activity of black skin is clear: it isn’t naturally oilier than whites in any consistent or significant way.
No wonder the reproduction rate rural white America is so low…
Yes, we often encounter that here in Los Angeles, and I’ve encountered it constantly in every single other “American” city in which I’ve lived.
Occam’s Razor counsels us to go with the simple explanations that fit the evidence: (1) Africans born in America are more often unintelligent, and more often extremely unintelligent, than other people here, and
(2) a higher percentage of Africans are under the influence of serious drugs, or suffering the effects of long-term drug abuse, than other groups in the USA; and
(3) simplest of all, Africans simply like to intimidate other people or at least make them uncomfortable, especially white people.
Ah, Fort Ree!
Say hi to the grunts at Hiram’s for me.
“The answer involves a wee bit of tedious algebra (we should all be suspicious of algebra – it’s a Muzzie concept, the dusky blighters).”
LOL! LOLL!! LOLOLL!!!
You could have done the least bit of research and discovered that the vast majority of dementia cases are non-inherited. Stress and grief are known to increase the chances of developing dementia.
Another poorly researched white supremacist article. Shocking.
From a personal stand point I would be inclined to state that you are the closest to the mark, although you probably err slightly to the other extreme by saying it is predominantly cultural and political. Humans are highly and fast adaptable, therefore there is no long term, hard set predisposition for either r or K strategy.
It was quite funny to me to read the wisdom of my grandmother packaged into a high Anglo-theory of an Anglo academic slime bag such as Rushton. The second funny thing is that the politically correct author of this article shies away from stating the obvious – that those prone to racial violence tend to be too dumb to understand that the London study is pointing in the same direction as the one that riled them before.
I am sooooooooooo glad I diverted myself from a path of becoming an academic.
Opposing these academic wanks are people such as Kratoklastes whose nihilistic view does help put things into the correct perspective. Academics => ego games and chasing of money without a proper owner (held by government) and the young female and male students for conspicuous reproduction.
I haven’t stopped for a lot of thought but this reminds me of Ron’s demolition of some of Lynn’s dodgier stuff, notably the Irish having IQs averaging low 80s IQs when the English were 100.
While you have your abacus and quill handy could you let us have your thoughts on the American average IQ and whether it is worth referring to at all. I have in mind that, say, 14 paper cent of the population of average IQ 90 and 13 Per cent with average 85 should have some considerable weight on the total and 2.5 per cent with average 110 wouldn’t offset much of those low figures. Add a considerable difference between rural crackers and sophisticated metropolitans and you could get some confusing figures that afford at least as much reason for worrying about the welfare costs of the aging as losing the technological edge over China.
You have it backward. The individual who matures earliest, does not exhibit neoteny. . The price for early maturity is the brain ceases to develop; although the mind may continue to develop within the capacity of the brain hardware.
No….neoteny is late sexual maturity.
Blacks mature earlier than whites. Their brains had less time to develop neural connections, before the flood of hormones at puberty stopped brain development.
Isn’t evolution great!
That’s not true. Most blacks in London are not muttering or mumbling to themselves. What you see is that among people who mutter and mumble to themselves, blacks are overrepresented. In the case of blacks, it is more than likely a serious mental illness, not dementia. (A quick internet search shows that dementia is not considered a mental illness.)
In Great Britain, it has been found that black men are 17 times more likely to be diagnosed with a serious mental illiness than white men.
You have misunderstood the concept of neoteny and brain development.
1.) Neoteny is the retention of child-like anatomy in adults.
2.) Africans are more neotenous than Whites
3.) Neural development is accelerated, and improved, not hindered by hormones, in particular human growth hormone and IGF-1.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27038749/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23629538/
This is blithering idiot Lance Welton, Alt-White hack writer, parasitic Derb twin, and mountebank extraordinaire. Research is not how he rolls.
Oh, and anybody singing the praises of Philip Rushton is not worth the piss it would take to splash his boots.
“Dutton’s book makes sense of anomalies with the model, arguing that as a group becomes more K-selected, it becomes more evolved to an extremely specific niche. This means that—to become adapted to that specific niche—the different K-traits (intelligence, age at puberty etc.) become less strongly connected, explaining, for example, why the high K Japanese seem to have very little interest in adopting children, despite this being “nurture for nurture’s sake.””
Not sure if this paragraph interests anyone, but I find it incredibly interesting.
I look at the current crop of elites, SJW’s, Wall Streeters, and I see Hot House Flowers. Literally I can’t imagine them doing well in any other environment.
This includes putting them in another culture. Sure they “Rebase” all the time, move to Hong Kong, Dubai, etc. But in the end their employment is due to either being employed by a Western concern operating in that country, or to interface with one.
Can’t imagine a trader from Goldman Sachs being able to make it as a street vendor in Calcutta, rising to the top of the pushcart trade. But he’s smart see, and his competition are f*#king morons, right?
But it ain’t gonna work that way. And the same guy could work as hard as he wants, coming in as an entry level guy at a Japanese trading house, and he won’t get to the same position as he did in New York.
Not talking about ethnic favoritism per se, simply that if you change the rules of the world, some people don’t have the tool box to be winners anymore. And that cat’s tool box is awfully specialized.
Definitely not what it takes to be a farmer on the Great Plains for example.
I am a black woman, when I was 16 years old and two to three pounds below my ideal body weight, a white woman thought my 13 year old sister was my daughter. I was built like Marilyn Monroe at the time so I guess in her mind that didn’t equal child.
Obese or not, confusing a 29 year old black woman with a 40 year old makes sense since blacks don’t age significantly between those years. Whites on the other hand exhibit significant wrinkling when they hit 40 so there is a marked difference between 29 and 40. Around 40 is when white actresses and news anchors get face lifts and cosmetic work done.
Blacks actually pay attention to what whites look like, whereas whites pay scant attention to blacks. When physicist Clifford Johnson was 14, he moved to England from Montserrat and went with his mother to enroll in Catholic school. The administrator thought that Johnson and his mother were husband and wife, even though has mother was 50 years old at the time!
If anyone is interested in seeing Johnson talk about the incident, click the link and search for the video titled “Clifford Johnson remembers high school in Preston, England”. Click again, then go to the 2-minute mark. I can’t provide a direct link since the website uses 1902 technology.
http://www.idvl.org/sciencemakers/Bio39.html
Groups that live long all have one thing in common: they belong to a tight-knit community that values and respects all of its members. Hispanics have very tightknit families and children are valued. Researchers tend to ignore this simple fact. Watch any longevity video showing people from Japan or the Mediterranean, or Seventh-Day Adventists and you will usually see groups of long-term friends spending lots of quality time with one another. People live longer when they have a reason to live.
“Lack of access to healthcare” has always been a lie for most health issues, but it is impossible to make billions off of the truth. Cuban-Americans, Mexican-Americans, and Central/South Americans in the US all have lower rates of infant mortality rates than whites. only Puerto Ricans are higher.
All outsude factors being held equal, I don’t buy that Africans are shorter-lived than other races. In fact I’ve never bought that there’s any correlation between race and natural longevity at all. Again, all outside factors being held equal.
You provoke a very interesting speculation. Can a statistical connection be made between group average age of sexual maturation and average IQ? You would expect Rushton to have believed there was. But then also tested the proposition – so where’s his abstract?
Actually I remember going to a Medico-Legal Society event where, in a context I don’t precisely remember, someone asked (maybe rhetorically) “are the sexy smarter?” in reference to individuals’s age of maturation. The answer was apparently “yes” for a single ethnic group. I remember thinking of my contemporary early maturers. The boy with hair on his chest at 12 wasn’t very bright. But like others with early growth spurts and beards they stopped growing early.
Hilarious! I have always believed, though, that people who haven’t the moral integrity to disclose their real identity should not be taken seriously.
Dutton’s book seems to be more or less a demolition of Rushton: “An archetypal Narcissist, Rushton attempted to manipulate people into supporting his model and cherry picked and dishonestly presented his findings. And among many other fast Life History strategy traits, Dutton explores Rushton’s dropping out of high school, his multiple divorces, his compulsive lying, his affairs, his two illegitimate children including one by a married black woman, and even his use of physical violence.”
The research paper referred to merely sets out the statistical results of the study but draws no conclusion as to the cause of the differences. Nothing in the paper therefore supports the author’s claims, including the link to Rushton’s ideas. An amusingly silly example: the author claims that “Blacks age more quickly and they therefore go through dementia more quickly. Being less intelligent than whites (as part of their r-strategy), they will have used their brains less—less reading, smaller vocabulary, less practice at remembering details – meaning that the process of decline to a child-like level will be faster”. However, the paper does not conclude that, on average, Blacks contract dementia at an earlier age than Whites but rather that a greater proportion of them contract it, regardless of the age at which it is diagnosed. The author doesn’t seem to understand that difference.
Incidentally, the author’s description of an “r-strategy” sounds, to my European mind, like a perfect description of White Americans! “You could be wiped out at any moment, so you evolve to “live fast and die young.” Accordingly, you invest all your energy in mating—in order to have as many offspring as possible with as many partners as possible in the hope that some will survive. You invest very little energy in nurture, because such energy could easily go to waste.”
Hey, when all you have is a hammer…
As Steve (and PBS!) has discussed in the past, more docile slaves were unloaded in Barbados, while more unruly slaves were unloaded in Jamaica.
That explains why rape is so high in India.
I imagine the same is true of Middle Easterners, higher r than whites as they are closer to Africa, but held back by religion. That’s why they need their women to wear hijabs and burqas, to protect them from the sexually aggressive males, and that’s why having more Africans and Middle Easterners in Europe is bad news for European women, unless they too want to start wearing the burqa and hijab.
Human growth hormone production drops dramatically with the onset of puberty. Puberty occurs when the production of sex hormones accelerate. Neural development slows as the onset of sex hormones wipe out the possibility of further rapid neural connection as life moves on. Life’s remaining task is reproduction of the species, not the production of abstracting brain functions.
Neoteny is also used to name the retention of larval features in the adult; but this use is not (as) relevant or revelatory in the study of human evolution or racial differences (as) the limited definition that neoteny is the delayed onset of puberty, which allows longer brain development before the abrupt cessation of rapid brain development with puberty’s onset.
I studied neoteny some 20 years ago, as it is a feature of my family line. There is an interesting theory that neoteny is the result of sexual selection for artistic ability. I haven’t followed this hypothesis over the intervening years, but noticed it is still advanced at http://www.neoteny.org/, whose author is primarily interested in the relationship of neoteny and autism.
Those were two of the traits Rushton looked at first. Here is his 1988 paper: http://philipperushton.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/iq-race-brain-size-r-k-theory-sex-rushton-personality-individual-differences-1988.pdf
His summary (emphasis mine):
P.S. It is interesting that pages 1018 and 1019 are blanked out in the pdf linked above. Those pages are available in the libgen version of the paper and contain the detailed description of r/K reproductive strategies.
Great info!
I just recently brought up IGF-1 on the other article about Rushton in relation to racial differences in twinning rates:
– https://www.unz.com/article/investigating-a-great-though-flawed-investigator/#comment-2440825
and
Why Have Twins?
Mothers more likely to have twins have heavier, healthier non-twin babies, possibly explaining why twinning evolved.
https://www.unz.com/article/investigating-a-great-though-flawed-investigator/#comment-2440472
This is an interesting statistic, that blacks have a higher dementia rate than whites. Of course if the NYTimes were to write about this finding their conclusion would be it’s because blacks face higher stress in life due to racism and stress is the primary cause of dementia. Liberals can always explain away everything with racism or sexism.
This article seems to imply that stupider people get dementia at a higher rate because they use their brains less (or is it the earlier onset of puberty?). A more thorough study should be done to see if those who majored in STEM get dementia at a lower rate than those who majored in liberal arts, or if college grads get dementia at a lower rate than high school dropouts. My impression is even very smart people can get dementia, like Margaret Thatcher, who actually had a degree in Chemistry from Oxford University. And then there are the Indians who have a lower rate of dementia (than whites), their average IQ is nearly 20 points lower than whites’, at 81.
We also can’t conclusively tie the r factor to dementia unless we can prove that East Asians, the group with the highest K factor, get dementia at a much lower rate than blacks or whites. I have not seen such a study.
Neoteny defined as the delayed onset of sexual maturation is characteristic of my family line. I too noticed many of my early maturing peers were not as intelligent as the later maturing (nerds). I studied this issue briefly about 20 years ago from curiosity about the import of my early observations.
If I had another life to live, I think evolutionary biology relating to neoteny would be a green field of research. However, in our politically correct age; the implications of neoteny, race, and intelligence might limit one’s career and access to funding.
The author at the link below has assembled a vast archive of the research on neoteny and evolution, but I am not convinced of his conclusion that evolution’s driver has been song and dance.
http://www.neoteny.org/what-is-neoteny/
Thanks!
Correct.
Is Soda Bad for Your Brain? (And Is Diet Soda Worse?)
Both sugary and diet drinks correlated with accelerated brain aging
– https://www.bu.edu/research/articles/soda-bad-for-brain/
CONSUMPTION PATTERNS OF SUGAR SWEETENED BEVERAGES IN THE UNITED STATES
– https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662243/
Demographics of soft drink consumption from the Seattle Times:
Source: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/data/no-soda-tax-for-diet-drinkers-seattles-plan-excludes-drinks-favored-by-rich-and-white/
sexual maturity isn’t a child-like trait
late maturity suits harsh environments where you need to keep the population low.
i could imagine having lots of people to talk to might have an effect on dementia
I think the Haiti vs. Barbados et al. comparison is more interesting. Barbadians and Jamaicans (~75 years), both, have life expectancies 12 years higher than Haitians (~63 years).
I commented on this here:
– https://www.unz.com/article/thoughts-on-decolonization-as-an-anti-white-discourse/#comment-2076646
I think this explanation is incorrect.
I do not think it is the predictability or otherwise of the environment, because the environment in Africa is quite predictable, and women in much of Sub-Saharan Africa can provision their children themselves.
I think the key difference is pathogen load. Other areas of the world, especially far away from the equator , have much lower levels of pathogens that will get you!
Of course, to enjoy the lower pathogen load you have to deal with a seasonally changing climate!
What does that even mean???????? Propensity to dementia is genetic.
Blacks are less stressed than whites though.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/psychological-medicine/article/specifying-raceethnic-differences-in-risk-for-psychiatric-disorder-in-a-usa-national-sample/1CA69893BBC6D08E003D116017FDC2E9
The sort of dumb take you would expect from a stupid continental wank username
Two Fergusun Era t-shirts sum it up nicely:
“I can’t breath”
“Gone to soon”
It is amazing how many white folks fatten their ego by bashing black folks.
Think Peace — Art
p.s. Insisting over and over that someone is lacking in smarts is wrong. It is hurtful. Do No Harm.
p.s. What good does it do?
The lack of imagination or personality in MBAs and investment banker types is amazing. (As befits the bullshit fake job they have) They can’t carry normal human conversations. I don’t think many of them could pass a Turing test.
The research on this, however, is not entirely conclusive when it comes to race:
– https://qbi.uq.edu.au/brain/dementia/genetic-risk-factors-dementia
– https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4440569/
Stress seems to be more of a risk factor for whites in dementia not blacks:
Cognitive resilience to apolipoprotein E ε4: contributing factors in black and white older adults.
– https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25599330/
(Apologies for using ‘symmetric’ below when talking about distributions: I’m being a bit pedantic, but the question of symmetry is the important question. All normal distributions are symmetric, but not all symmetric distributions are normal).
I’ve said before, there is no basis to assume a priori that IQ is distributed symmetrically around some average (like height seems to be); anecdotally it seems (to me) that there are a lot more people below the mean IQ, than above it.
The estimated distribution of IQ is symmetric by construction; test results are shoe-horned into a normal distribution with average 100 and standard deviation 15. It’s similar to ‘grading on a curve’.
I am not aware of any data-based validation of the assumption of symmetry based on raw IQ test scores.
High school exam results are not symmetrically distributed; they are lognormal (like income), and pretty obviously so. More kiddies score below the unadjusted average, then above it.
For high school results, that’s partly explained by the fact that the vast bulk of attendees are there against their will. Best guess: if high school attendance was not mandatory, 70% of kids would leave school before they turned 15. That’s how things were before mandatory attendance to age 17/18/19: in Australia in the 1970s, only about a third of kids stayed until the end high school (and barely half of those passed) and less than 5% of the population had bachelor’s degrees (bachelor’s degrees in hobbies did not exist, and university entry was competitive).
In any case, university results have the same skewness; there are more failures than there are outstanding students.
That’s because there are just more dummies – because the system preferentially breeds dummies, mostly by subsidising reproduction (mostly through increased benefits).
The subsidies are large enough to encourage the dumb and poor to reproduce; ‘dumb’ and ‘poor’ overlap quite a bit.
The dumb poor are more influenced by the subsidy.
On paper the subsidy looks like a significant net addition to household income, but does not cover the actual cost of an additional kid (so the household gets poorer). The dumb poor lack the tools to work this out.
The subsidies are nowhere near enough to encourage smart women (poor or otherwise) to devote their time to child-rearing.
As a result, the global trend of low fecundity in smart, wealthy people… continues to accelerate.
The expansion of the welfare state is a very good explanation as to why the Flynn Effect stopped.
We had an in-depth discussion on this topic, in the following comments thread. Extremely interesting topic, in my opinion:
The projections and the actual number of students with an IQ over 144 were fairly close; and there were more students than projected that had an IQ over 130. However, there were far fewer students than projected with an IQ over 120 and even more fewer than projected with an IQ over 110.
Source: https://www.unz.com/jthompson/text-and-talk/#comment-2311497
This is not necessarily a bad thing (from the same comment):
– https://www.unz.com/jthompson/text-and-talk/#comment-2311497
Here is my theory about why American Hispanics have very low rates of infant and early childhood mortality and are generally very healthy despite all the caterwauling about poverty and la k of medical care.
This is my opinion. American Hispanics are the very toughest survival of the fittest of the slaves of the Aztecs, then slaves of the Spanish and upper class Hispanics.
They are like tough little donkeys vs horses. They have evolved to survive on little and not very nutritious food, sleep on the dirt floor, drink dirty water , lack of health care and a hard life. The weaker ones died off a two thousand years ago and only the toughest had children who survived to have children.
I’ve already stated my opinion based on personal observation. Therefore, you have two choices if you wish to respond to me:
1. Claim that my personal observations are mistaken (This is the “agree to disagree” option: just throw some ad hominem my way and walk away.)
2. Present a persuasive alternative explanation for my observations (Assuming hypothetically that my observations are correct, provide me with some different reasons: “Yes, Asians/Blacks do have ~, but…”)
You have finally responded with an alternative explanation rather than spamming with ad hominems and data tables of unclear provenance or relevance. However, I cannot accept the alternative explanation that you have provided.
It is not only Black and Asian females who tend to exhibit greasier complexions than White females, but also Black and Asian males compared to White males. I have observed the same oily skin on parts of the body of Black and Asian people to which they could not themselves apply skin care products or cosmetics with their hands.
Furthermore, a conundrum is posed by your claim that Japanese men have thinner skin than Whites. Pale, thin skin should be less opaque/more translucent than dark, thick skin. Do you not agree? If we accept that Asians like the Japanese are pale “ice people” as people on this site are so fond of doing, then how would you explain the fact that Japanese people’s skin is so much more opaque/less translucent than White people’s skin even when both are in an untanned state?
Try reading Dr. Lana Cantrell’s book titled “The Greatest Story Never Told”. No one is looking at diet. Your skin color says a lot of your biochemistry. Blacks, Whites and Asians are unique enough biochemically that their diets should be unique as well.
How long do Africans live in developed African nations? Compare that to Whites and what do you see? I can attest from my matriarchal and paternal grandparents that Blacks can and frequently do outlive Whites. My father’s side of the family lives on average 93 years; my mother’s side is about 88 years.
Those that eat “modern foods” will complain of diabetes and dementia and diabetes are closely linked.
DIET, DIET, DIET…
If you take the time you can research the term SITOLOGY. The best information I found – and slowly corroborated much – came from Dr. Cantrell’s book which is now out of print.
Oh, down here in South Louisiana, the oldest persons in the rural parts of the state are BLACKS who either farm or still eat a “farmer’s diet” followed by the Creoles of Color (“Black” to most of you reading this) followed by Acadians or Cajuns who live the same types of lives. If any eat an “Anglo Diet” (what some of us term the SHIT that most of you consume) then each person’s/race’s inherent weakness will come to the fore and you see what you see: gout, diabetes, dementia, etc., etc.
BTW, if you look at poor Whites and poor Blacks on “Anglo Diets” they look the same: poor human specimen.
I think this ‘blacks age better’ has to do with their skin wrinkling less at a particular age as compared to Whites. But there are other factors and body features which lead to blacks looking older than their age as you have mentioned.
Geez. And you people have the nerve to complain about Sarah Jeong and the NYT for tolerating her social media posts about how white people smell like dogs when they get wet, and so on! I don’t see how her postings are any less scientific than this garbage. Both are no more than emotional venting.
Before I launch my righteous tirade against that Godwin/Smith paper, let me make the point that I don’t find a massive problem with the idea that there might be more very-highly-intelligent people than would be explained by the ‘standard’ model, even in a world where IQ is best approximated by log-normality (which is my preferred guess).
If humans mate assortatively (they do), and fertility is negatively correlated with [income and] IQ (it is), then there are drivers at the ‘top end’ that concentrate intelligence upwards.
So a little upwards ‘blip’ at the top of the distribution would not remotely surprise me; it’s the sort of ‘shrinking middle’ that happens when populations bifurcate.
The same phenomenon is seen in household-level income distributions: there are more households with exceptionally-high earnings (more than 4x median household income) than would be expected – because a lot of the time, two quite-high-earning individuals (more than 2x median individual income) are in the same household.
OK… now the tirade.
The striking thing about the Godwin/Smith paper is that they were not prepared to simply test the raw data and let it rest – they tied themselves into methodological knots that appear (to my cynical way of thinking) to tilt the playing field in favour of one side of the hypothesis:
What’s a ‘trivial’ deviation from normality? Who gets to decide that?
Why did they finagle the ‘effective sample size’ upwards, by dimensionally-reducing the data? They converted from raw scores to A,B,C,D ‘buckets’, thereby ensuring that there was a very large amount of correlation in their new pseudo-sample. Why? Weird.
The assertion that it’s problematic that with a large (effective) sample size, small deviations from normality are detected… that makes me grind my teeth. That’s the whole point – as the sample size increases, tests get better at discriminating between normal and non-normal distributions.
The fact that the large effective sample size is an artefact of the data-massage process just makes me grind them harder.
Claiming that increased test power is a problem is almost like writing down “What we’re kinda looking to do is to find a way to say this data is kinda-sorta normally distributed“.
That’s the Torquemada²approach to statistical analysis: torture the data and the methodology until either of them confesses.
And why use a (one-sample) KS test? Why use a non-parametric test at all? The requirement for a non-parametric test is another artefact of putting the data into ‘bins’.
Why use a test that requires specification of the alternative distribution? (Not just it’s type – i.e., ‘normal’ – but its parameters as well).
KS is just a test of the maximum distance between the CDF of the data and the CDF of the known distribution under the null – which brings in all manner of assumptions as to how you parameterise the null (with the usual parameters for IQ, i.e., N(100,15), or with the sample mean and sd?). KS is a terrible choice of test for this task: a ‘fail second year econometrics‘-level terrible choice.
Both the Shapiro-Wilk (SW) and Anderson-Darling (AS) tests are better tests for normality (they are more powerful, although SW struggles for category and quasi-category data – it doesn’t like large numbers of identical values).
Bear in mind that it’s easy as pie to obtain estimates of the excess skewness and kurtosis of the raw data, and compare those to theoretical values (0 for both, under normality).
Jarque-Bera (combined test for excess skewness and kurtosis) and D’Agostino’s K² are also better candidates (both of those improve as the sample size increases, and are close to their asymptotic properties when the sample size gets to about 1000. Testing √b₁ (the skewness parameter) is known to require adjustment for poor properties under Hₐ, but the adjustment required is known.
The whole point of statistical analysis is to try to work things out without letting researcher biases infect the work. The requirement for parsimony (“Ockham’s Razor”, after a fashion) extends to methodology: for tests for normality, there is no requirement whatsoever to reduce the dimensionality of the data.
So I wouldn’t simply look at the plot you’ve reproduced and say
No. Slap a generalised KDE over the raw data, and declare victory if and only if it spits out a lognormal distribution.
Alternatively, walk around a mall and “non-parametrically test” the hypothesis that 50% of the observed individuals have an IQ above 100. lol.
https://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health-conditions/cognitive-impairment/
Apparently there is a strong connection between Vitamin D (the sunshine vitamin) deficiency and cognitive impairment.
Blacks in Amerika/Kanada and Europe would automatically be deficient because of their dark skin. They are suited to life near the equator. Unless they have been taking supplements from childhood (maybe). Of course, white people who stay out of the sun or slather themselves with sunscreen product are going to have a low Vitamin D status as well.
My father (fair haired and fair skinned at birth) worked outdoors for 55 years, became darker than a gypsy, yet never got skin cancer or anything else like that. Same with all my grandparents.
Maybe I missed it. But unless the study focused solely on whites of similar background, education, and socialization process and existence,
it is, in short ,
deeply flawed. Often referred to as a false comparison — mismatched artifacts lumped together as a whole and compared —–
If you think that American Hispanics are very healthy, you aren’t seeing enough of them. Their obesity is staggering, worse than the fat-ass white people and probably even worse than the immense Africans.
Every single hour in L.A., in fact everywhere around here, we see Mexicans, especially the “women”, waddling along, huge iPhone sticking out of back pocket of huge jeans. (insert Bart Simpson’s “gotta kiss Aunt Patty” shiver here) Many, many of them are more obese at age fifteen or twenty than most of the rest of us at age 50.
Inability to absorb enough Vitamin D through dark skin a factor in that?
I have read that cancer rates for South African Blacks are a lot higher in Canada than in South Africa.
You’d think Blacks couldn’t get any crazier than they are in Africa, but maybe they can.
“If you think that American Hispanics are very healthy, you aren’t seeing enough of them. Their obesity is staggering, worse than the fat-ass white people and probably even worse than the immense Africans.”
Obesity, regardless of race or ethnicity, is a major issue. But you prefer that your comments are the bottom of the barrel variety.
Interesting that South Asians (Indians) have less dementia than blacks or whites. They also tend to be more vegetarian and a significant proportion of them practice regular fasting in connection with the Hindu religion. And both blacks and whites in the US tend to eat a lot of meat and be deficient in vitamin D.
My very first comments on the Unz Review were actually on this topic, but more related to frontal lobe dopamine levels than Vitamin D levels:
– https://www.unz.com/gnxp/the-2000-year-selection-of-the-british/#comment-1415185
– https://www.unz.com/gnxp/the-2000-year-selection-of-the-british/#comment-1415671
There is a connection between creativity, to a certain extent intelligence and more lightly pigmented eyes/irises due to this:
– https://www.unz.com/freed/fun-with-iq-deep-thought/#comment-2098254
Just published by the NY Times. We will have more clarity by November, hopefully:
Vitamin D, the Sunshine Supplement, Has Shadowy Money Behind It
The doctor most responsible for creating a billion-dollar juggernaut has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the vitamin D industry.
– https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/18/business/vitamin-d-michael-holick.html
These studies seem to confirm it:
Intermittent Fasting Protects against Alzheimer’s Disease Possible through Restoring Aquaporin-4 Polarity
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5712566/
Dietary Links to Alzheimer’s Disease
William B. Grant
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264121252_Grant_Alzheimer_1997?_sg=uAptVfDtP2f7h2bSrf93_PVPvJMYZdcgfu-3r4Kz_u1I1al_6cC6TGxiUvRPuGr5slW4kZCx2w
Figure 1. Scatter plot of Alzheimer’s disease prevalence versus fat supply for 11 countries, along with the linear regression fit to the data (AD prevalence rate = -0.203+(0.0312*fat (grams/day))).
Figure 2. Scatter plot of Alzheimer’s disease prevalence versus total food supply for 11 countries, along with the linear regression fit to the data (AD prevalence rate = -6.178 + (0.00309*(total calories/ day))).
Recent findings that elderly African-Americans and Japanese living in the United States have much higher prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease (6.24% and 4.1%, respectively) than those still living in their ethnic homelands (<2%) suggested that environmental rather than genetic factors are the primary agents causing Alzheimer’s disease. Recent papers linking clinical expression of Alzheimer’s disease to oxidative stress and cerebral infarct suggest that diet is a key factor in the development of Alzheimer’s disease. To test this hypothesis, regression analyses were performed on the prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease in the 65+ age population for 11 countries obtained from 18 community-wide studies versus components of the national diets. The primary findings are that fat and total caloric supply have the highest correlations with Alzheimer’s disease prevalence rates (r2 = 0.932 and 0.880, respectively). In addition, fish consumption is found to reduce the prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease in the European and North American countries. The literature suggests that fat contributes to oxidative stress and inflammation and that fish oils combat inflammation. Recent papers finding that several dietary components and supplements have been found effective in delaying the onset of Alzheimer’s disease, including antioxidants, fish, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are consistent with this finding.
Regarding the thrust of the article, whether black rates of dementia are genome-related and if they lend support to Rushton’s r/K selection theory — well, it’s possible but not necessary. If yes, I’d reckon it’s an evolutionary trade-off for high energy, hardiness, and high sexual fitness earlier in life. I’d guess that relatively few blacks would have survived much past 50 “in the wild”, anyway, during their evolutionary history; and so, there wouldn’t have been much downside to this dual-ended-candle-burn strategy. Elders passing down wisdom and increasing the survivability of the tribe over the long run was probably much less of a factor in their case as compared to other races.
I think it’s more like — those individuals or groups [in harsh, cold environments] who had the ‘late-maturing genes’ (which resulted in or coincided with larger brains, greater learning, etc) would have outcompeted the fast-maturing types [over thousands of years].
What the primary selection pressures were — overpopulation, an ice age, warfare, or something else — who knows?
Barbados is not the only volcanic island in the Caribbean, I can immediately think of a bunch of them, for example Dominica, Montserrat, Nevis, and others.
“Out, out, brief candle. Life is but a walking shadow. It’s a poor player who struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more. Life is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
said:
“all have lower rates of infant mortality rates than whites.”
Who is included in the “white” category?
I suspect considerably more than euro-whites, middle eastern, n. african for example.
Aren’t there euro-whites included in “hispanics”?
said:
“Obesity, regardless of race or ethnicity, is a major issue. But you prefer that your comments are the bottom of the barrel variety.”
Said by an unhinged racist Zionist who believes in scientifically impossible ‘Nazi gas chambers’ and supports Israeli immigration laws which specify JEWS ONLY, while demanding massive 3rd world immigration into the US & Europe.
http://www.codoh.com
That article from the NYT is quite interesting, needless to say. I imagine that those who agree with the contents could have just as much of an agenda as Dr. Holick. However, that doesn’t mean the Vit D council doesn’t have an agenda, either. They suckered me into buying a Vitamin D test kit! Medical insurance might have paid for it but it is too much trouble to go to the doctor.
Everything seems to revolve around the definition of “health”. It’s not good enough to say that “there’s no evidence that people with the higher level are any healthier than those with the lower level”. They need to be far more precise. So you can fall out of bed, swill your coffee and make it to work on time and then make it back home – does that make anyone “healthy”?
About the dopamine business. This seems like a chicken & egg thing or maybe I just don’t understand all that scientific stuff…
Thanks so much for your reply to my comments. I really appreciate your mentioning the NYT article in particular.
Are we blaming purple drank now?
LOL, maybe the current problems with third and fourth wave feminism is due to diet soda.
There’s a dietary connection. Blacks have a lousy diet and eat a lot of sugar. Rates of obesity are higher for blacks than whites. There’s a connection between too much sugar and dementia. Blacks also believe in partying a lot, and they drink a lot of alcohol. Do this for long enough and you’ll get brain damage.
I don’t think the low vitamin D theory holds much water when it comes to blacks. A ton of blacks are on welfare. A lot of these blacks hang around in front of their residences all days, out on the street and in sunlight. Black males do a lot of going walkabout. They’re getting all that outdoor sunshine as well as exercise. Being unemployed and black gives you far more opportunity to get sunlight than being white and stuck in an office all day. If blacks are still not getting enough Vitamin D, it’s more likely from lousy diet than lack of sunlight.
In Great Britain, it has been found that black men are 17 times more likely to be diagnosed with a serious mental illiness than white men.
Link please!
Readers interested to know more about J. Philippe Rushton’s theories should check out Jared Taylor’s comprehensive review of his book Race, Evolution, and Behavior here:
https://www.amren.com/news/2011/09/a_new_theory_of/