Its genetic because half wits get killed or thrown out of high trust societies. Ironically women's rights lowers intelligence of a society because women want to be ravaged by low IQ dogs.
This is a Feminist concept (it's shocking how pervasive it is). Women who think they should be superior to men will simply chose inferior men as partners.
Dogs are all one race.. but dog breeds have various temperment and intelligence.
If dog breeds can have specific temperment and intelligence... then humans of certain breed/ethnicity also will have certain temperment and intelligence.
Dogs are exactly like humans. all dogs can bite but certain dogs bite more often, can chimp out more often, and can do more damage.. same with humans, all humans can murder, but some murder more often, Some human breeds chimp out more, and etc etc.
Sure, all of that is true. I just want to point out that sub-Saharan Africans are further removed genetically from Europeans than dogs are from wolves.
It shouldn’t be controversial to say that we are different species.
It shouldn’t be controversial to say that we are different species.
We're not different species, we're a species complex since we can all still interbreed. The inability to produce fertile offspring is one of the defining terms to differentiate a species. If you crossbreed a horse with a donkey you get a sterile mule. Crossbreeding any human with another just results in a still fertile human.
Sub species is probably the better option to distinguish things.
The cornerstone of progressivism is that unequal outcomes are downstream of oppression. When a black student fails, a math test, it's not because he is stupid or didn't study, it's because the test is racist, the teacher is racist, the school is racist, and the entire institution of mathematics is racist. For this reason, progressives take a "blank slate" view of humanity; anyone can achieve anything given sufficient support. Put a hoodrat in Harvard, and he'll become a doctor or a lawyer; the only reason that he has not yet done so is because oppression.
Progressives believe that it is possible to socially and politically engineer away the ills of society: crime, poverty, pollution, etc. But if people are not blank slates, if human nature is a constraint, then that puts limits on how effective those engineering programs can be. Worse, it also suggests that the institutions and the unequal status quo that progressives decry as oppressive and illegitimate have good reasons to exist the way they do, given the constraints of human nature. Both of these problems place limits on the progressive ideal of universal equality and add legitimacy to the present, unequal society.
Ironically, liberals have arrived at the same conclusions via going the completely wrong direction.
For example, a Black student failing a test is racist (or rather "discriminatory") because Black students cannot be expected to perform like Whites. "Equity" is a valid concept because, if you want equal outcomes, you need to give Blacks and Whites different tests, reflecting their actual capabilities. Somehow, liberals have fully internalised the idea that some races (and other groups) are inherently superior to others (which is why you can't "discriminate" against straight White males; we're just the pinnacle of humanity) while simultaneously being willing to sacrifice everything to make that not true.
Their means are sane, but their motive is not. Tolerance is not a virtue and discrimination is not a sin. We should treat Blacks differently from Whites, as they clearly already do, but not because we are correcting historical injustice or some other claptrap, but because Blacks are inherently more violent, less intelligent, and unable to operate at the level of Whites. Blacks had better lives under Jim Crow than they do today because those laws protected them (and us) from themselves.
Constructionism is the cornerstone of marxism. They believe everything is a social construct, having an external demostrable proof of objective reality completely shatters their theory.
They believe culture shapes people, we believe culture is an extension of people...
What you just described is significantly downstream from genetics. A system of punishing criminals arose from our ancient genetics, although it certainly helped maintain selective pressure.
But even more downstream from environment. A society that needs to plan food rationing every winter cannot afford useful members who will victimise their betters rather than starve.
I always see this argument, but it ignores the fact that all early civilizations originated in fairly warm climates near the Mediterranean, places where winters are fairly mild. Northern Europe didn't join the fold until the Romans looped them in.
Not everywhere, in Scandinavian places before the invasion of the church, they "outlawed" criminals. Which meant they were at the mercy of the town. This meant exile, and out there, that was almost always death unless the criminal was high IQ.
That remained in England well after Christianization, didn't stop until the Normans, well really survived after that in different forms. The stockades were a limited form of outlawry.
Page 25 in the PDF is particularly interesting as it plots how common certain traits are in Europe like red hair and skin colour, disease resistance etc.
Oh goodie, we're now realizing things we knew a century ago again. Great. Hell, even the ancients knew this intrinsically which is why bloodlines mattered.
Adapt or die. That's how simple it always comes down to. If you don't have to adapt in the first place then you don't change, hence parts of Africa remaining no different from how they were thousands of years ago because they didn't have to suffer seasonal changes that meant death if ill prepared for.
Very stupid theory since if it were reflected by animal life the animals would simply die upon birth. Hungry for milk? Die. Need to reach the shore? Die. Expected to be born with the ability to walk? Die. Need to put your head up to accept food? Die. Etc etc in fact I would say that this happens from time to time without much note- an animal is born a little too blank; it does not access their hereditary loadout as efficiently as other examples of the species which dooms it to perish before breeding. Mega "in-fact" observation: this provides a distinct evolutionary motive for a delayed maturity in animals, specifically to protect the hereditary loadout by providing time for loadout-failures to perish before breeding. Mega ULTRA "in fact" observation: humans display that sexual maturity delay, which suggests we share the same evolutionary motive, which suggests blank slate is false.
They only believe in it for humans. It's too obvious that many animal species are highly precocial: unlike humans, they have no society, education system, etc., and, in many cases, even no family structure and parental care to speak of, and yet they are able to survive and thrive from the get-go. Trying to argue that animal minds are blank slates is completely untenable. I am not aware of anyone who has bothered to try to make this case: not Boas, Gould, Lewontin, or any of those others who have made the case that this is so for humans.
Humans are actually the odd ones out, being extremely altricial (i.e. non-precocial). Somehow humans have lost something that animals possess in abundance, e.g. instincts (the German philosophical anthropologist Arnold Gehlen called this 'instinct deprivation'), and possibly even Cartesian innate ideas. These are the things that enable animals to survive without education systems, etc. And it is their absence in us that requires us to make such structures: we have to learn how to survive because the necessary knowledge for survival is not innate to us.
That's where all the Leftist and liberal nonsense comes in: the human mind, and near only the human mind, could convincingly argued to be essentially a blank slate upon which only external factors write, and they simply argue for the equality of these blank slates. The ruinous fool Locke seems to be interpreted as following a view like this.
The mistake seems to be in thinking that empiricist blank slatism necessitates racial equality, not even merely as an ultimately unattainable ideal, but as an objective truth. Racial equality is 'just the truth'. Some mysterious cause has ensured a levelling, a uniformity.
Of course, nothing about empiricism necessitates racial equality: even if I was firmly an epistemological empiricist, I see no reason to believe that every blank slate is one of equal size, quality, etc. Human brains are not produced as though they are all products of one production line and thus essentially identical: racial egalitarians, for all their supposed commitment to diversity, are inconsistently denying diversity where it is most evident. Thus, even brains empty of mental contents, and thus in that sense all equal—equally empty of ideas, instincts, etc.—could still be unequal in their capacity to learn, utilize, etc. mental contents. This view seems closer to a greater thinker like Leibniz.
The first view is the one on which racial equality rests: the one that needs to be demolished because it is so thoroughly incompatible with genuine human progress. Leftist and liberal views of race that force the intelligent to shoulder the increasingly crushing burden of the stupid and impulsive—increasingly crushing because those are also the fastest growing in number—will only lead to the world being ceded in its entirety to them, and to the extinction of the intelligent. Without enough intelligent people, they also will die off by the multitude, and, thus though they are too short-sighted to see it, it is not even in their own self-interest for the status quo to continue.
On your last point, this is clearly measurable with birth rates. The lowest IQ countries are cranking out the most kids, and within a country like the US, the lowest IQ (and poorest) segment of the population has the highest birth rate. While the most intelligent segment is not at replacement rate.
That's why our deficit keeps growing, taxes keep growing, and welfare systems keep growing. And those low IQ countries are dependent on the high IQ countries. That are also slowly collapsing. Soon, the high IQ countries will fail, and within them, the welfare population will have an uprising when there aren't enough high IQ providers for them. And the low IQ countries will starve without these high IQ countries to support them. This will be an interesting century...
Somehow humans have lost something that animals possess in abundance, e.g. instincts
You touch on this but I'd like to be explicit; humans do have an instinct, one that supercedes the plethora of environmentally dependent instincts in other animals because it is universally useful.
We possess curiosity. Coupled with our unique ability to learn and actually understand (as opposed to the brute force, blind, behavioural change animals use to adapt) we can live anywhere and do practically anything.
But to fully utilise this ability, we need the capacity to hold knowledge. Our education systems (even culture, generally) are a shortcut to cramming only the necessary information into even small brains, giving the illusion of equality. Of course, if the information fed to students is not all necessary, we quickly see who is able to correct the failure and who is trapped in the false worldview they have been provided.
It was only ever questioned by the inferior -- and those in control who wanted to infiltrate the inferior to live amongst the superior.
Prior civilisations had a caste system for a reason, because those who ARE inferior should be separated from those who are superior in order to maintain stability, growth, productivity and evolutionary progress.
When forcibly intermixed we can see how civilisation systemically breaks down on all sides.
Nurture factors in heavily as well. High levels of nurture over generations have a positive effect. Genetics definitely plays a role, but it's not the only factor
Not really. Nurture as far as not starving and being raised in a physically toxic environment, yes. However even multigenerational private school kids regress to the mean the same as everyone else. Genetics is unbeaten in this.
It's a combination of factors. Some can carry more weight than others and both likely have a level of tolerance that is fluid. 2 low IQ white parents can easily produce a kid that chimps out as well, and especially without intense nurture
It’s really not. Again aside from starvation and toxicity your IQ is inherently genetic. This study literally shows it’s not “combination of factors”, it’s heavily genetic.
2 low IQ white parents can easily produce a kid that chimps out as well, and especially without intense nurture
Regression to the mean says otherwise, two low in parents will have average intelligence children more often just as genius parents will not always have genius children.
Newfag pastor Joel Webbon has one hot take among a sea of ten year old memes: Europe's rigid devotion to Christ for a thousand years caused Europeans to adapt to Christ in a positive feedback loop. Efforts to proselytize foreigns should keep this in mind, that it may take them a thousand years or more to produce fruits the way Europeans did.
Its genetic because half wits get killed or thrown out of high trust societies. Ironically women's rights lowers intelligence of a society because women want to be ravaged by low IQ dogs.
This is a Feminist concept (it's shocking how pervasive it is). Women who think they should be superior to men will simply chose inferior men as partners.
Typical dual mating strategy. Get pregnant by retarded, masculine men, have intelligent, less masculine men pay the bills and do the grunt work.
I don’t think so
Dogs are all one race.. but dog breeds have various temperment and intelligence.
If dog breeds can have specific temperment and intelligence... then humans of certain breed/ethnicity also will have certain temperment and intelligence.
Dogs are exactly like humans. all dogs can bite but certain dogs bite more often, can chimp out more often, and can do more damage.. same with humans, all humans can murder, but some murder more often, Some human breeds chimp out more, and etc etc.
Sure, all of that is true. I just want to point out that sub-Saharan Africans are further removed genetically from Europeans than dogs are from wolves.
It shouldn’t be controversial to say that we are different species.
We're not different species, we're a species complex since we can all still interbreed. The inability to produce fertile offspring is one of the defining terms to differentiate a species. If you crossbreed a horse with a donkey you get a sterile mule. Crossbreeding any human with another just results in a still fertile human.
Sub species is probably the better option to distinguish things.
Were Neanderthals a different species from Homo sapiens?
The cornerstone of progressivism is that unequal outcomes are downstream of oppression. When a black student fails, a math test, it's not because he is stupid or didn't study, it's because the test is racist, the teacher is racist, the school is racist, and the entire institution of mathematics is racist. For this reason, progressives take a "blank slate" view of humanity; anyone can achieve anything given sufficient support. Put a hoodrat in Harvard, and he'll become a doctor or a lawyer; the only reason that he has not yet done so is because oppression.
Progressives believe that it is possible to socially and politically engineer away the ills of society: crime, poverty, pollution, etc. But if people are not blank slates, if human nature is a constraint, then that puts limits on how effective those engineering programs can be. Worse, it also suggests that the institutions and the unequal status quo that progressives decry as oppressive and illegitimate have good reasons to exist the way they do, given the constraints of human nature. Both of these problems place limits on the progressive ideal of universal equality and add legitimacy to the present, unequal society.
Ironically, liberals have arrived at the same conclusions via going the completely wrong direction.
For example, a Black student failing a test is racist (or rather "discriminatory") because Black students cannot be expected to perform like Whites. "Equity" is a valid concept because, if you want equal outcomes, you need to give Blacks and Whites different tests, reflecting their actual capabilities. Somehow, liberals have fully internalised the idea that some races (and other groups) are inherently superior to others (which is why you can't "discriminate" against straight White males; we're just the pinnacle of humanity) while simultaneously being willing to sacrifice everything to make that not true.
Their means are sane, but their motive is not. Tolerance is not a virtue and discrimination is not a sin. We should treat Blacks differently from Whites, as they clearly already do, but not because we are correcting historical injustice or some other claptrap, but because Blacks are inherently more violent, less intelligent, and unable to operate at the level of Whites. Blacks had better lives under Jim Crow than they do today because those laws protected them (and us) from themselves.
Constructionism is the cornerstone of marxism. They believe everything is a social construct, having an external demostrable proof of objective reality completely shatters their theory.
They believe culture shapes people, we believe culture is an extension of people...
Specifically, whites are crossbreeds with Neanderthals while every other distinct genetic race are not.
I would say it has much more to do with the European developed system of governance that imposed the death penalty on criminals.
Positive eugenics for the win.
What you just described is significantly downstream from genetics. A system of punishing criminals arose from our ancient genetics, although it certainly helped maintain selective pressure.
But even more downstream from environment. A society that needs to plan food rationing every winter cannot afford useful members who will victimise their betters rather than starve.
This was always the funniest part about the nature versus nurture debate. The two were never disconnected. Genetics are an expression of environment.
I always see this argument, but it ignores the fact that all early civilizations originated in fairly warm climates near the Mediterranean, places where winters are fairly mild. Northern Europe didn't join the fold until the Romans looped them in.
Not everywhere, in Scandinavian places before the invasion of the church, they "outlawed" criminals. Which meant they were at the mercy of the town. This meant exile, and out there, that was almost always death unless the criminal was high IQ.
That remained in England well after Christianization, didn't stop until the Normans, well really survived after that in different forms. The stockades were a limited form of outlawry.
East Asians have Neanderthal and also Denisovan DNA.
I knew there was a reason we rocked with the Japanese
Grog like your comment
Harvard uploaded the full article in PDF.
Page 25 in the PDF is particularly interesting as it plots how common certain traits are in Europe like red hair and skin colour, disease resistance etc.
https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/sites/reich.hms.harvard.edu/files/inline-files/2026_Akbari_Nature_selection_0.pdf
Wait your telling me that Africans don't suddenly become neurosurgeons and scientists once they have kids in America?! Shocker! More news at 11
Civic nationalists in shambles.
They do bigot.
I know plenty street pharmacist niggers exist and they’ll even do surgery on you for free if you visit during their office hours.
Oh goodie, we're now realizing things we knew a century ago again. Great. Hell, even the ancients knew this intrinsically which is why bloodlines mattered.
Adapt or die. That's how simple it always comes down to. If you don't have to adapt in the first place then you don't change, hence parts of Africa remaining no different from how they were thousands of years ago because they didn't have to suffer seasonal changes that meant death if ill prepared for.
Very stupid theory since if it were reflected by animal life the animals would simply die upon birth. Hungry for milk? Die. Need to reach the shore? Die. Expected to be born with the ability to walk? Die. Need to put your head up to accept food? Die. Etc etc in fact I would say that this happens from time to time without much note- an animal is born a little too blank; it does not access their hereditary loadout as efficiently as other examples of the species which dooms it to perish before breeding. Mega "in-fact" observation: this provides a distinct evolutionary motive for a delayed maturity in animals, specifically to protect the hereditary loadout by providing time for loadout-failures to perish before breeding. Mega ULTRA "in fact" observation: humans display that sexual maturity delay, which suggests we share the same evolutionary motive, which suggests blank slate is false.
They only believe in it for humans. It's too obvious that many animal species are highly precocial: unlike humans, they have no society, education system, etc., and, in many cases, even no family structure and parental care to speak of, and yet they are able to survive and thrive from the get-go. Trying to argue that animal minds are blank slates is completely untenable. I am not aware of anyone who has bothered to try to make this case: not Boas, Gould, Lewontin, or any of those others who have made the case that this is so for humans.
Humans are actually the odd ones out, being extremely altricial (i.e. non-precocial). Somehow humans have lost something that animals possess in abundance, e.g. instincts (the German philosophical anthropologist Arnold Gehlen called this 'instinct deprivation'), and possibly even Cartesian innate ideas. These are the things that enable animals to survive without education systems, etc. And it is their absence in us that requires us to make such structures: we have to learn how to survive because the necessary knowledge for survival is not innate to us.
That's where all the Leftist and liberal nonsense comes in: the human mind, and near only the human mind, could convincingly argued to be essentially a blank slate upon which only external factors write, and they simply argue for the equality of these blank slates. The ruinous fool Locke seems to be interpreted as following a view like this.
The mistake seems to be in thinking that empiricist blank slatism necessitates racial equality, not even merely as an ultimately unattainable ideal, but as an objective truth. Racial equality is 'just the truth'. Some mysterious cause has ensured a levelling, a uniformity.
Of course, nothing about empiricism necessitates racial equality: even if I was firmly an epistemological empiricist, I see no reason to believe that every blank slate is one of equal size, quality, etc. Human brains are not produced as though they are all products of one production line and thus essentially identical: racial egalitarians, for all their supposed commitment to diversity, are inconsistently denying diversity where it is most evident. Thus, even brains empty of mental contents, and thus in that sense all equal—equally empty of ideas, instincts, etc.—could still be unequal in their capacity to learn, utilize, etc. mental contents. This view seems closer to a greater thinker like Leibniz.
The first view is the one on which racial equality rests: the one that needs to be demolished because it is so thoroughly incompatible with genuine human progress. Leftist and liberal views of race that force the intelligent to shoulder the increasingly crushing burden of the stupid and impulsive—increasingly crushing because those are also the fastest growing in number—will only lead to the world being ceded in its entirety to them, and to the extinction of the intelligent. Without enough intelligent people, they also will die off by the multitude, and, thus though they are too short-sighted to see it, it is not even in their own self-interest for the status quo to continue.
On your last point, this is clearly measurable with birth rates. The lowest IQ countries are cranking out the most kids, and within a country like the US, the lowest IQ (and poorest) segment of the population has the highest birth rate. While the most intelligent segment is not at replacement rate.
That's why our deficit keeps growing, taxes keep growing, and welfare systems keep growing. And those low IQ countries are dependent on the high IQ countries. That are also slowly collapsing. Soon, the high IQ countries will fail, and within them, the welfare population will have an uprising when there aren't enough high IQ providers for them. And the low IQ countries will starve without these high IQ countries to support them. This will be an interesting century...
You touch on this but I'd like to be explicit; humans do have an instinct, one that supercedes the plethora of environmentally dependent instincts in other animals because it is universally useful.
We possess curiosity. Coupled with our unique ability to learn and actually understand (as opposed to the brute force, blind, behavioural change animals use to adapt) we can live anywhere and do practically anything.
But to fully utilise this ability, we need the capacity to hold knowledge. Our education systems (even culture, generally) are a shortcut to cramming only the necessary information into even small brains, giving the illusion of equality. Of course, if the information fed to students is not all necessary, we quickly see who is able to correct the failure and who is trapped in the false worldview they have been provided.
It was only ever questioned by the inferior -- and those in control who wanted to infiltrate the inferior to live amongst the superior.
Prior civilisations had a caste system for a reason, because those who ARE inferior should be separated from those who are superior in order to maintain stability, growth, productivity and evolutionary progress.
When forcibly intermixed we can see how civilisation systemically breaks down on all sides.
Nurture factors in heavily as well. High levels of nurture over generations have a positive effect. Genetics definitely plays a role, but it's not the only factor
Not really. Nurture as far as not starving and being raised in a physically toxic environment, yes. However even multigenerational private school kids regress to the mean the same as everyone else. Genetics is unbeaten in this.
It's a combination of factors. Some can carry more weight than others and both likely have a level of tolerance that is fluid. 2 low IQ white parents can easily produce a kid that chimps out as well, and especially without intense nurture
It’s really not. Again aside from starvation and toxicity your IQ is inherently genetic. This study literally shows it’s not “combination of factors”, it’s heavily genetic.
Regression to the mean says otherwise, two low in parents will have average intelligence children more often just as genius parents will not always have genius children.
Newfag pastor Joel Webbon has one hot take among a sea of ten year old memes: Europe's rigid devotion to Christ for a thousand years caused Europeans to adapt to Christ in a positive feedback loop. Efforts to proselytize foreigns should keep this in mind, that it may take them a thousand years or more to produce fruits the way Europeans did.