49 replies to this topic

[j03]

This is something I'm noticing more and more. People like one of the co-founders of this website, Michael Anissimov, and his More Right Conservatism movement (http://www.moreright.net/), the Dark Enlightenment (http://www.thedarkenlightenment.com/), etc. intellectuals and life existentialists adopting what were previously ideologies held by people on the fringes.

With the demographic collapse of European people and the slide towards eventual extinction, I think to most people seeking longevity they have to ask, 1)what's the point of living a long life if I am going to witness the collapse of western civilization, war, genocide, the depravity you see in Syria or Somalia in your western cities, and 2)will white people even be allowed to live?

With greater multiculturalism a competition for resources will be drawn along tribal lines and this is assured to happen! Don't believe me? Name one successful multicultural society? In fact, the only time multicultural societies that have succeeded have been societies ruled by authoritarian force - think Iraq under Saddam Hussein, and then look what happened as soon as he was taken out of power - the genocide of Kurdish and Assyrian people, civil war of Sunni Vs. Shias, etc.

Anyways, to avoid conjecture, I will substantiate some of what I said, here's media and movements correlated with Michael Anissimov's More Right Movement:

http://www.moreright.net
http://www.thedarkenlightenment.com
http://www.anonymous...ative.com/blog/
http://www.counter-currents.com
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/
http://gatesofvienna.net/
http://www.vdare.com/
http://www.amerika.org/

Mostly highbrow stuff, not your typical rednecks.


Has anyone else noticed this as well? Are you concerned about what future you will inherit if you live a long time?

[Bogomoletz II]

“1)what's the point of living a long life if I am going to witness the collapse of western civilization, war, genocide, the depravity you see in Syria or Somalia in your western cities,”

My main point: the question of living a long, and hopefully even indefinite, life, is much more urgent then the question of the survival of civilization, which has much more survival capacity than you do.

By the way, what do you think about Jews?

Gotta go, kinda in a hurry. I'll get back to this to visit the websites you linked to.

Edited by Bogomoletz II, 24 March 2014 - 09:41 PM.

[nowayout]

WTF! This is really offensive.

[1kgcoffee]

I agree with you that multiculturalism is a mistake, but so to is drawing arbitrary lines for who belongs to a society based around skin color or religion. You can always tell a country is in trouble when they start to blame a miniority or outsiders for their problems. In a prosperous society, there is no competition between tribes. Western civilization has no skin color.

[Stella]

Western civilization has no skin color.

On the contrary, western civilization has one skin colour, and that is white. Even the people who don't have white skin are pressured, for better or worse, into being white. And that is the case with all countries, outsiders are either assimilated or rejected.

Personally, first immortality, then everything else. Death is probably one of the easier things about us to fix.

[Bogomoletz II]

Two more points:

1. White nationalism is primarily an American phenomenon because most Americans have no ethnic identity, only racial and civic/national. Italian and Irish Americans are among the few exceptions.

2. There's an interesting, albeit hardly scientific, explanation for such preservation movements, including this movement for preservation of White culture and/or genotype. Ernest Becker gives the explanation a new, detailed perspective in his "The Denial of Death." Interestingly, one of the first works of literature in human history, the "Epic of Gilgamesh," tells the story of a king seeking physical immortality, but eventually he decides that death is inevitable for him and instead ventures for what he sees as the next best thing, namely to "immortalize" himself in the memory of upcoming generations, through lasting works of civilization and culture. The same themes echoes throughout Antiquity; for instance, in Horace's "Eheu fugaces."
==============================

You're asking why White nationalism or racialist movement in general are popular in the longevity/anti-aging movement. First of all, I'm not convinced yet that they are. If they are, consider the common links: both draw on biology, especially genetics, and both are nowadays on the fringe.

[Bogomoletz II]

Another possible explanation for the above. Some studies have shown that thought of death or deadly danger, of which extensionists probably have lots, can provoke people to in-group/out-group mentality (of any group, not necessarily racial) and even sway them more toward the political right. This is likely an evolutionary adaptation, arguably vestigial, for zero-sum conditions of scarce resources. It's a much bigger part of human psychology than the public imagines.
Edit. And it has a genetic basis, too, of course. A genetic test can tell with good accuracy where you stand on the left-right political spectrum (in American terminology the dichotomy is between "liberalism" and "conservatism").

Edited by Bogomoletz II, 25 March 2014 - 11:03 AM.

[ben951]

Soon that appearance thing: white, black, yellow, orange, green will not be permanent and a matter of choice and fashion only.

It will be the end of that insanity at last.

[Jeoshua]

I agree and vehemently disagree at the same time to this.

Multiple cultures, defined as ways of life that stretch back into antiquity with all their attendant trappings and ways of thought, do indeed separate people. Think of Little China. These people are separated from their history, separated from the others living in their cities, many cannot even communicate with anyone outside their immediate vicinity. This is not a good thing. It builds walls, sometimes metaphorically, and sometimes literally, between people, and draws us apart.

However, conflating culture and race is a dangerous path. While Asians, for example, tend to be very insular and to stick in groups like Little China, oftentimes the second or third generation of their family born into such a situation will abandon this insularity, and become members of the greater culture surrounding their tiny enclave. They become naturalized, speak the language of the greater community, live the same lives, and have the same opportunities. They do not take anything away from the greater world outside Little China, and most often move away to some other place to seek their fortunes elsewhere. In other words, they cease to have that same culture of their parents and grandparents, and become fully American (in this example). And this is a good thing.

Trying to say that all people of a certain race are automatically a certain way in anything outside appearance is teetering very close to racism, and is definitely prejudice. I would hope that no truly intelligent person would think this way, but unfortunately, many people cannot see the forest for the trees, and fall into these destructive ways of thinking. It is a Culture that I don't approve of.

Edited by Jeoshua, 26 March 2014 - 02:01 PM.

[Bogomoletz II]

Trying to say that all people of a certain race are automatically a certain way in anything outside appearance is teetering very close to racism, and is definitely prejudice. I would hope that no truly intelligent person would think this way, but unfortunately, many people cannot see the forest for the trees, and fall into these destructive ways of thinking. It is a Culture that I don't approve of.

Intelligent people can be just as prejudiced. They only seem less prejudiced because they're better at hiding it -- perhaps, even from themselves. There is an interactive online test used in studies measuring subconscious discrimination, called Implicit Association Test. Take the test, and you will probably find out you're much more intolerant thank you've previous thought.
http://implicit.harvard.edu/

Racist-like behavior has even been observed in human infants. There is a certain genetic psychopathology -- I don't remember which -- that makes a person inherently less racist, though not less sexist. Bigotry is in our genes.

[1kgcoffee]

Western civilization has no skin color.

On the contrary, western civilization has one skin colour, and that is white. Even the people who don't have white skin are pressured, for better or worse, into being white. And that is the case with all countries, outsiders are either assimilated or rejected.

Personally, first immortality, then everything else. Death is probably one of the easier things about us to fix.

I'm not sure what you mean by being white. I can give examples of friends and acquaintances, fully assimilated with tan or dark skin. They were born here and are fully westernized. Maybe things are different outside of Canada. It seems to be more the case in homogenous countries like Japan or 20th century Germany where the idea of a fatherland and master race can take root.

[j03]

Western civilization has no skin color.

On the contrary, western civilization has one skin colour, and that is white. Even the people who don't have white skin are pressured, for better or worse, into being white. And that is the case with all countries, outsiders are either assimilated or rejected.

Personally, first immortality, then everything else. Death is probably one of the easier things about us to fix.

I'm not sure what you mean by being white. I can give examples of friends and acquaintances, fully assimilated with tan or dark skin. They were born here and are fully westernized. Maybe things are different outside of Canada. It seems to be more the case in homogenous countries like Japan or 20th century Germany where the idea of a fatherland and master race can take root.

WTF? I live in downtown Toronto... I'm a Grad student at the UofT. I'm one of the only white guys in most of my classes, and I'm not having a fun time at all being constantly bombarded with ethnic chauvinism! Where's this Liberal Canadian multicultural paradise you speak of? Oh yeah, in the rich subburbs (99% white) where you're ensconced in.

[niner]

The RISE of White Nationalism in the longevity movement? Sorry, you have it backwards. Back when the extreme longevity movement was really on the fringe, it collected a lot of people that were, well, fringey. Intellectual or pseudo-intellectual racist pontificators don't have shit to do with the real longevity movement today. That is the domain of scientists, not terrified loser tribalist douchebags.

[cargocultist]

The RISE of White Nationalism in the longevity movement? Sorry, you have it backwards. Back when the extreme longevity movement was really on the fringe, it collected a lot of people that were, well, fringey. Intellectual or pseudo-intellectual racist pontificators don't have shit to do with the real longevity movement today. That is the domain of scientists, not terrified loser tribalist douchebags.

Can you define the meaning of "terrified loser tribalist douchebags" and perhaps give some examples? I don't think the issue of race is scientifically settled at all. To start with, a lot of it is semantics. If race is to mean "genetically distinct groups" then there's no such thing. But a kind of convergent evolution of different groups in colder climates towards facilitating higher degrees of social organisation is not at all far fetched. The punctuated equilibrium model of evolution allows rather rapid rates of change. The Russian fox domestication experiments validated this most strikingly. Unfortunately, in our modern world there is no selective pressure for improvement of the genetic stock. To the contrary, the highest rate of reproduction is found among criminals and there's a general inverse correlation between socioeconomic success (a good proxy for IQ) and reproductive success. This inverse correlation is strongest among blacks, with poor blacks having something like 3.5-4 children per "family" (often single mothers) and successful blacks having fewer than one 1 child per family. I.e., if the 15 point IQ gap between blacks and whites is genetic, and it seems to have been stable for the last two decades, it is probably growing wider into the future.

Societies are emergent phenomena, and even small differences on the individual level could create huge differences on the social level because complex systems are highly dependent on initial (e.g. genetic) differences. This is popularly known as the butterfly effect. And then there is the shape of the bell curve, which is highly non-linear near the edges further compounding the problems of low-IQ groups and shaping to a high degree their cultural trajectories because of a "deficiency" of competent leadership and geniuses at the high end of the curve coupled with an overabundance of morons on the lower end. Furthermore, a semi-moron middle class is incapable of democratically shaping politics even if competent politicians would be available to choose from.

If different ethnic groups indeed have different distributions of personality traits, including IQ, introversion/extraversion, etc then a changing demographic could move countries towards tribalism and collapse. This seems to be exactly what is happening across the Western world today. Tensions between groups are a large factor too. I recommend Harvard's professor Robert Putnam's work on the social dynamics of diverse groups. The results of his research show even worse outcomes of diversity than any white supremacist has ever claimed.

He is optimistic though, pointing out the different European population eventually came together. But they basically looked the same, had a similar IQ average and never demanded their mother tongue to replace and become the lingua franca, like what is happening in many Mexicanized cities of the US, led by La Raza (which is far worse an organization than the KKK but you don't hear about them in the MSM). And they never demanded that the whole population of their country of birth be invited in, which is exactly what is happening now.

I used to be a liberal democrat. But even many Jews who supported and instigated open immigration policies of the past to, in the words of Stephen Steinlight, "serve our agenda", "divide and conquer", etc are backing out now: http://www.cis.org/a...1/back1301.html

[1kgcoffee]

Is this discussion mainly about people with black skin of African origin? Can a persons mind be reduced to their skin colour? I haven't read any complaints about people from the near and far east. Iran, Iraq, India and China and S.E.A had developed sophisticated societies long before Europeans did. Social order/cohesion are much higher values in Asia. So why did European civilizations become the dominant one of recent history? It has nothing to do with minor differences in phenotype and everything to do with dominant ideas and chance events like the plague and mongol hordes and the ming dynasty decision to isolate itself rather than explore and trade. Within the last two hundred years both German and Japanese were considered to be lazy nations that produced low quality goods. This changed dramatically when new ideas were introduced.

In Africa, the problem has always been mysticism, tribalism and inhospitable climates. We might see black people, but there are innumerable tribes constantly at war with each other. The geographical isolation made it impossible for philosophy to enter and so they stayed primitive.

How much of IQ is inherited and how much is the result of environmental factors like nutrition and a stable family? It may be true that median IQ of African Americans is one standard deviation behind everyone else, but I doubt it has anything to do with genetics. Unless you can show a difference in frequency of genes related to intelligence between black folk and other 'races' then there is not much scientific basis.

By the way, I am far from a liberal democrat. I do not value diversity or multiculturalism. I think most Africans would laugh at wonderbread American blacks who think they something in common with them outside of skin tone.

[cargocultist]

Is this discussion mainly about people with black skin of African origin? Can a persons mind be reduced to their skin colour?

Individualism is useful in the legal context with regards to equal rights. That doesn't mean different groups can not have different cultural trajectories because of genetic differences. I'm not suggesting judging anyone on the basis of whatever characteristic. But if you wish to know: the inverse correlation between darkness of skin and IQ is rather strong. Even darker pigeons have been observes to be more successful in city environments. And they have been observed to be more bold. Dopamine is synthesized from melanin. To sum things up:

- Melanin rich individual have more dopamine synthesis
- 58% of black males carry the low activity 3R "warrior gene" MAO-A allele (vs. 36% of white males) further increasing monoamines, including dopamine (this and more melanin protect Africans from Parkinson's)
- African males have a high androgen/estrogen ratio (there's regional variation on the large continent)
- Africans have a smaller brain size suggesting a more hostile childhood environment. Smaller brain mature more quickly and blacks children have been observed to develop motor skill more quickly. Being able to sit up straightright after birth while it usually takes a couple of weeks for white children

This info may be important for the longecity members because different nootropic and ergogenic regiments may be better for people of different ethnicities. These differences are certainly relevant for the pharmaceutical industry as well, because some medicines need to be tailor made or differently dosed.

I haven't read any complaints about people from the near and far east. Iran, Iraq, India and China and S.E.A had developed sophisticated societies long before Europeans did. Social order/cohesion are much higher values in Asia.

The Chinese were ahead for a long time. It is possible that the feudal chaos, something in between tribalism and empirialism, of Europe temporarily put the Europeans in the lead. There are many other factors as well. East-Asians have a slightly higher average IQ, perhaps even due to dietary patterns, but a low variance in IQ, perhaps due to a lower androgen/estrogen ratio. The higher androgen/estrogen ratio of males is probably partly responsible for the far wider bell curve of males vs. females, although the male and female average IQ is about the same. East-Asian males are less masculine perhaps explaining why there are more European geniuses percentage wise even though the average IQ of Europeans in slightly lower.

Dysgenics could easily account for a lower modern IQ of Europeans vs. E-As as well (corrected for the Flynn effect which is active in both regions). These days the average IQ of Greeks is 92 and there's clear evidence of an inverse correlation between intelligence and fertility across Europe, excepting perhaps the Ashkenazim. The latter would explain why this ethnic group scores a full standard deviation above the European mean, wins so many Nobel Prizes, Fields Medal's, et cetera. It's not just cultural because Sephardics and Mizrahi Jews are not special at all in the area of science and IQ. It is even a taboo among Ashkenazim to marry a non-Ashkenazim Jew.

So why did European civilizations become the dominant one of recent history? It has nothing to do with minor differences in phenotype and everything to do with dominant ideas and chance events like the plague and mongol hordes and the ming dynasty decision to isolate itself rather than explore and trade. Within the last two hundred years both German and Japanese were considered to be lazy nations that produced low quality goods. This changed dramatically when new ideas were introduced.

Chance effects play a large role. Nevertheless, the ancestors of modern Europeans and Africans had a 60.000 year head start in Africa. That's a good opportunity for all sorts of chance events to happen. Then all of a sudden after intermixing with Neanderhals and becoming whiter, Europeans and North-Africans started developing towards civilization.

In Africa, the problem has always been mysticism, tribalism and inhospitable climates. We might see black people, but there are innumerable tribes constantly at war with each other. The geographical isolation made it impossible for philosophy to enter and so they stayed primitive.

Why do you presume the African savanna, the place where we evolved for the most part, is somehow a harsher environments than, say, Siberia? And what do you even mean by "geographical isolation"? The population density was far lower in Eurasia up until historic times, for the simple reason that it takes a while for a continent to become populated while Africa had already been inhabited by homo sapiens for about 60.000. I would suggest that colder climates are actually far harsher and would further inhibit population growth while selecting for long term planning and cooperative abilities.

Interestingly, the brain volume of homo sapiens was larger in prehistoric times. Skulls with very large cranial capacities have been found both in South-Africa and Europe, the remains of the latter population used to be referred to as Cro-Magnon man. It's possible that Africans had a very great potential in the past but simple missed the train. A dangerous childhood environment, such as due to tribal conflict, selects for quicker maturation times, i.e. a smaller brain and perhaps higher levels of monoamines. As I pointed out earlier, black infants maturate more quickly in the area of motor skills. Suggesting a different childhood environment over evolutionary time. So, the higher population density of Africa rather than geographical isolation may have selected for lower intelligence indirectly. This is an evolutionary trap. It happens in other species too: gorillas are unlikely to develop towards higher intelligence whereas chimps and bonobos could theoretically more easily become more intelligent.

How much of IQ is inherited and how much is the result of environmental factors like nutrition and a stable family? It may be true that median IQ of African Americans is one standard deviation behind everyone else, but I doubt it has anything to do with genetics. Unless you can show a difference in frequency of genes related to intelligence between black folk and other 'races' then there is not much scientific basis.

Many twin studies shows the correlation between genetics and adult intelligence to be very high, roughly 0.8. Far higher for example than the correlation between sexual orientation and genetics, which is only 0.3 according to a Swedish study, the largest twin study ever done exploring this question. Suggesting strong non-genetic factors, probably in utero. About the cause(s) of homosexuality: hypotheses non fingo, so as not to contaminate the thread. Back on-topic.

Some interesting facts from the 2005 SAT data:

Blacks from families with incomes of more than $100,000 had a mean SAT score that was 85 points below the mean score for whites from all income levels, 139 points below the mean score of whites from families at the same income level, and 10 points below the average score of white students from families whose income was less than $10,000.

So, children of very poor whites do better than children of wealthy blacks, strongly suggesting a regression towards a different IQ mean: 85 for blacks and 100 for whites. The "regression towards the mean" is a well established statistical phenomenon that acts particularly strongly on outliers such as relatively very successful or unsuccessful people within their respective ethnic groups. Just let it sink in for a while: even children of the wealthiest blacks tend to do very poorly in school. This complicates the accumulation of wealth in black lineages and the development of, what used to be called "good families".

[1kgcoffee]

. I'm not suggesting judging anyone on the basis of whatever characteristic. But if you wish to know: the inverse correlation between darkness of skin and IQ is rather strong. Even darker pigeons have been observes to be more successful in city environments. And they have been observed to be more bold. Dopamine is synthesized from melanin. To sum things up:

So you're not reducing it to skin colour but geographical origin. And the propensity to violence and low IQ is less true for dark skinned people from Southern India, Malaysia and Indonesia, correct? I'm not saying you're wrong, but do you have any citations to back these claims? What about the claim that Africans have a smaller than average brain size, and is that true for all regions of Africa or certain pygmie dominated areas?

You say that the average androgen to estrogen ratio for African people is greater than the average European- citation? or is that true only for certain regions of Africa? Or of African Americans that might have been selected for masculine traits in the slave days?

RE the warrior gene, brain MAO A activity does not correspond to MAO genotype. I think you might find this an interesting read:
http://www.bnl.gov/m...BiolPsych06.pdf

The higher androgen/estrogen ratio of males is probably partly responsible for the far wider bell curve of males vs. females, although the male and female average IQ is about the same. East-Asian males are less masculine perhaps explaining why there are more European geniuses percentage wise even though the average IQ of Europeans in slightly lower.

This is possible, but also unproven. The simpler explanation is that European tradition is to think outside the box, while Asians stifle their geniuses with conformity and rote learning.

The latter would explain why this ethnic group scores a full standard deviation above the European mean, wins so many Nobel Prizes, Fields Medal's, et cetera. It's not just cultural because Sephardics and Mizrahi Jews are not special at all in the area of science and IQ. It is even a taboo among Ashkenazim to marry a non-Ashkenazim Jew.

This might have been true in the old days, for the same reasons that christain denominations like to marry into their tradition. As the (atheist) son of an Ashkenazi and a Sephardi and having observed Jewish culture I can tell you that outside of extremely religious communities it is no longer true. Jews would be happy for their children to marry any Jew. (You can start to understand why I am skeptical of the white nationalism thing.)

Why do you presume the African savanna, the place where we evolved for the most part, is somehow a harsher environments than, say, Siberia? And what do you even mean by "geographical isolation"? The population density was far lower in Eurasia up until historic times, for the simple reason that it takes a while for a continent to become populated while Africa had already been inhabited by homo sapiens for about 60.000. I would suggest that colder climates are actually far harsher and would further inhibit population growth while selecting for long term planning and cooperative abilities.

By geographical isolation, I mean cutoff from the rest of the world by vast tracts of difficult to cross desert. So much of the continent is desert or thick jungle. There are a few spots where agriculture might have popped up eventually but never did.
250000 to 60000 years ago when modern humans first evolved- which might have happened outside of Africa- the climate was much different. Africa had a more moderate climate similar to southern Europe. Humans seem to thrive more in these sort of comfortable climates where disease is less prevalent and food plentiful.

Blacks from families with incomes of more than $100,000 had a mean SAT score that was 85 points below the mean score for whites from all income levels, 139 points below the mean score of whites from families at the same income level, and 10 points below the average score of white students from families whose income was less than $10,000.

So, children of very poor whites do better than children of wealthy blacks, strongly suggesting a regression towards a different IQ mean: 85 for blacks and 100 for whites. The "regression towards the mean" is a well established statistical phenomenon that acts particularly strongly on outliers such as relatively very successful or unsuccessful people within their respective ethnic groups. Just let it sink in for a while: even children of the wealthiest blacks tend to do very poorly in school. This complicates the accumulation of wealth in black lineages and the development of, what used to be called "good families".

This is concrete evidence if you can translate SAT scores to IQ and that particular difference to one standard deviation of reduced IQ in African Americans. IQ does seem to be correlated to income within 1 or 2 deviations, but not much outside of that.

It might also be true that black kids don't care as much about education because it's not cool. But I can't prove that.

Suppose you are right and black people have an average IQ of 85. We tried shipping them to Liberia but that plan failed. Are you saying that white people should just not interbreed with them? Even if you are right, it makes little difference at this point in history. We are so close to gattaca style future of selecting babies for good genetic stock. This may even include certain African stock like resistance to tropical disease and UV rays. You could engineer the ideal nordic child if you so desired. White nationalism will not solve any problem that science might eventually.

[cargocultist]

So you're not reducing it to skin colour but geographical origin. And the propensity to violence and low IQ is less true for dark skinned people from Southern India, Malaysia and Indonesia, correct?

I'm not sure and violence is significantly curtailed by having a functional central government and policing, which may be made up of a different (lighter skinned) ethnic group. Everywhere you go you see lighter skinned individuals being in charge and more developed (Alawites in Syria; Tutsis in Rwanda; Brahmin in India; etc). An exception to the rule rule is the Bantu people in SA nearly exterminating the indigenous lighter skinned Bushmen. Lighter skin dominance could be an artifact of colonialism. On the other hand, Europeans made a pretty clear distinction between civilized people and savages and probably teamed up with groups that were the most civilized at first contact. 

 

One study that correlates IQ with skin darkness, suggesting  a correlation of -.92. :

http://majorityright...and_skin_color/

 

You can take it with a grain of salt because of the Flynn effect. On the other hand: it's an open question whether African societies can even generate their own Flynn effect. The IQ of American blacks has stagnated at 85, so maybe not.

 

 

 

I'm not saying you're wrong, but do you have any citations to back these claims? What about the claim that Africans have a smaller than average brain size, and is that true for all regions of Africa or certain pygmie dominated areas?

Pygmies obviously have smaller brains but I don't know if this is true relatively taking into account body size. They are hunted by normal sized Africans and certainly consider inferior by them. "Negroids" (I know it's archaic) do have smaller brains than Caucasoids with Mongoloids having the largest cranial capacity. This is not scientifically controversial. Here's one study comparing "African-Americans" (that's not even English) with Caucasians. It's not corrected for admixture, which is common in blacks, so the pure race difference is bigger. Mean cerebral volume (much more relevant than whole brain volume):

-Caucasians: 1173.4 (9% larger) 

 

-Blacks: 1076.0

P 0.0002

 

9% bigger doesn't translate into being 9% more intelligent (whatever that means). The brain is a network and added material in a sense increases complexity exponentially.

 

Some political correctness from this study just for giggles: "Our primary finding in analyses of brain subregions was that when compared to Caucasians, African Americans exhibited larger left OFC (orbitafrontal cortex )volumes".

 

Study: http://www.plosone.o...al.pone.0013642

 

There are many studies on cranial capacity and neuronal count indicating the same results. And many studies indicating that the correlation between brain volume and IQ to be 0.3 to 0.4 per MRI comparison and somewhat lower from skull measurements because skull thickness is a confounding variable. 

 

 

You say that the average androgen to estrogen ratio for African people is greater than the average European- citation? or is that true only for certain regions of Africa? Or of African Americans that might have been selected for masculine traits in the slave days?

American blacks may have higher testosteron at least up to middle age, increasing the risk of prostate cancer twofold: http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/3455741

 

However, T is very sensitive to environmental conditions so I wouldn't give it too much weight. I read once that the T of Chinese may increase to European levels after migration, possibly due to the more competitive environment and dietary factors. People have different polymorphisms for neural T receptors too, further confounding things. Nevertheless, Africans have the most robust skeletomascular and cardiovascular build. And bigger kidneys too. East-Asians are the most gracile. A more robust build, smaller brain and lower levels of development across African seem to me highly unlikely to be accidental.

 

Digit ratio, a strong predictor of masculinity/femininity and and violent and risky behavior, varies across ethnic groups as well. Black Jamaicans are the most masculine. It's no accident that they are excellent sprinters. The ratio may be indicative of androgen/estrogen exposure in utero: http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/15500996

 

 

RE the warrior gene, brain MAO A activity does not correspond to MAO genotype. I think you might find this an interesting read:
http://www.bnl.gov/m...BiolPsych06.pdf

This is interesting but the study size is small and only compares healthy individuals. It's possible that the low activity genotype is more fragile under certain physiological conditions. I simply don't know.

The higher androgen/estrogen ratio of males is probably partly responsible for the far wider bell curve of males vs. females, although the male and female average IQ is about the same. East-Asian males are less masculine perhaps explaining why there are more European geniuses percentage wise even though the average IQ of Europeans in slightly lower.

This is possible, but also unproven. The simpler explanation is that European tradition is to think outside the box, while Asians stifle their geniuses with conformity and rote learning.

It's practically very hard or impossible to settle such a question. East-Asians have higher visuospatial IQ even when adopted, suggesting that even in IQ sub tests different ethnic groups score differently. Ashkenazim do very well on verbal and mathematical tasks but do spatially very poorly. That didn't stop Einstein of course. Perhaps he never tried to imagine the 4th dimension spatially (it's impossible anyway) and that's why he succeeded rather than went insane. N = 1 is irrelevant anyway.

 

This might have been true in the old days, for the same reasons that christain denominations like to marry into their tradition. As the (atheist) son of an Ashkenazi and a Sephardi and having observed Jewish culture I can tell you that outside of extremely religious communities it is no longer true. Jews would be happy for their children to marry any Jew. (You can start to understand why I am skeptical of the white nationalism thing.)

Perhaps Ashkenazim at large subconsciously still prefer their children dating other Ashkenazim but I could be wrong.  

 

 

This is concrete evidence if you can translate SAT scores to IQ and that particular difference to one standard deviation of reduced IQ in African Americans. IQ does seem to be correlated to income within 1 or 2 deviations, but not much outside of that.

I think IQ and socioeconomic status are pretty strongly correlated. Certainly IQ and SAT are, wiki: 

 

"Some measures of educational aptitude are essentially IQ tests – for instance, Frey and Detterman (2004) reported a correlation of 0.82 between g (general intelligence factor) and SAT scores;^[80] another research found a correlation of 0.81 between g and GCSE scores, with the explained variance ranging "from 58.6% in Mathematics and 48% in English to 18.1% in Art and Design".^[81]"

 

 

It might also be true that black kids don't care as much about education because it's not cool. But I can't prove that.

I was almost literally bored to death in school and scored in the 99.9th percentile (one decimal resolution) on a Dutch SAT-like test. Perhaps blacks drop out because the curriculum is too difficult? Self confidence certainly isn't the problem. It's easy to find a myriad of studies showing a negative correlation between achievement and self confidence. Thus, high self confidence is more often delusional rather than inspirational.

 

Suppose you are right and black people have an average IQ of 85. We tried shipping them to Liberia but that plan failed. Are you saying that white people should just not interbreed with them? Even if you are right, it makes little difference at this point in history. We are so close to gattaca style future of selecting babies for good genetic stock. This may even include certain African stock like resistance to tropical disease and UV rays. You could engineer the ideal nordic child if you so desired. White nationalism will not solve any problem that science might eventually.

I'm not so sure what people will choose and it will take a long time before we start doing that. Remember what happened when Joe Sixpack got 100 TV channels? In my opinion the Western world needs eugenics now, but if it is applied homogeneous across society the attrition rate of some groups would be very high. Then of course all the anti racists would suddenly believe in race again.

 

If I could make some practical policy suggestion it would be to sterilize repeat offenders (perhaps after being convicted of three felonies) as well as hard criminals. Repeat convictions for serious crimes should be punishable by death as well. And I suggest that people who neither succeed educationally nor professionally are not given welfare support without long term contraception or preferably sterilization.

 

Edited by cargocultist, 08 April 2014 - 02:47 PM.

[Jeoshua]

Nope, nevermind.

 

Removing myself from this conversation.

Is it possible to actually block it from even appearing?

 

Because this is all taking a turn for the darker and I don't want to get sucked back in.

Edited by Jeoshua, 08 April 2014 - 03:01 PM.

[Bogomoletz II]

Nope, nevermind.

 

Removing myself from this conversation.

Is it possible to actually block it from even appearing?

 

Because this is all taking a turn for the darker and I don't want to get sucked back in.

 

Upper right corner. Light gray button. Ufollow this topic.
 

[TheFountain]

"If I could make some practical policy suggestion it would be to sterilize repeat offenders (perhaps after being convicted of three felonies) as well as hard criminals. Repeat convictions for serious crimes should be punishable by death as well. And I suggest that people who neither succeed educationally nor professionally are not given welfare support without long term contraception or preferably sterilization."

 

This is somehow totally insane but somehow totally makes sense. 

 

[A941]

Why do I even start to read such threads?

 

As someone mentioned Death will be easy to fix compared to all that abominable, mental garbage we cam up with to divide us.

Race doesnt exist as we think it does, what does is religion and Culture, and these are the problems, the problem is only that there are enough people out there which will blame things on race, but never on culture and religion becuase they have the same backward mindset as their opponents, and if you do blame religion and culture someone will call you a racist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by A941, 14 April 2014 - 03:18 AM.

[addx]

USA is a multiethnic country and is the top military force in the world.
Switzerland is a multiethnic country and is the most advanced country in the world or among top 5.

Happyiness is a question of prosperity, as soon as it is lacking people will divide into smaller groups in order to restore their former level of prosperity at the cost of another groups level which becomes even worse. Ethnicity often serves as a basic divider.

[cargocultist]

Why do I even start to read such threads?

 

As someone mentioned Death will be easy to fix compared to all that abominable, mental garbage we cam up with to divide us.

Race doesnt exist as we think it does, what does is religion and Culture, and these are the problems, the problem is only that there are enough people out there which will blame things on race, but never on culture and religion becuase they have the same backward mindset as their opponents, and if you do blame religion and culture someone will call you a racist.

 

Religiosity and intelligence are inversely related. This is true for people within one country and also between countries. As I pointed out earlier, adult IQ and genetics have a correlation of roughly 0.8. So you should be worried that the genetic basis for intelligence is weakening due to the general dysgenic trend. 

 

 

USA is a multiethnic country and is the top military force in the world.
Switzerland is a multiethnic country and is the most advanced country in the world or among top 5.

Happyiness is a question of prosperity, as soon as it is lacking people will divide into smaller groups in order to restore their former level of prosperity at the cost of another groups level which becomes even worse. Ethnicity often serves as a basic divider.

 

There are many reasons why the US became the predominant power after WW2, amongst them is having the world primary reserve currency and abundant natural resources including much land for cultivation . Many highly talented German scientist (e.g. Werner von Braun) and Ashkenazim helped a great deal in the nuclear arms and space race. You're confusing short term strictly social trends with long term genetic trends. The US had selective quota on immigration before 1965. it was before this date that US power reached its peak relative to other countries. 

 

 

Happiness has many components. I suggest you read Putnam's work on the relationship diversity <-> mental health/happiness and general outlook.

 

Wiki example:

 

Lowered trust in areas with high diversity is also associated with:

• Lower confidence in local government, local leaders and the local news media.
• Lower political efficacy – that is, confidence in one's own influence.
• Lower frequency of registering to vote, but more interest and knowledge about politics and more participation in protest marches and social reform groups.
• Higher political advocacy, but lower expectations that it will bring about a desirable result.
• Less expectation that others will cooperate to solve dilemmas of collective action (e.g., voluntary conservation to ease a water or energy shortage).
• Less likelihood of working on a community project.
• Less likelihood of giving to charity or volunteering.
• Fewer close friends and confidants.
• Less happiness and lower perceived quality of life.
• More time spent watching television and more agreement that "television is my most important form of entertainment".

[A941]

 

Religiosity and intelligence are inversely related. This is true for people within one country and also between countries. As I pointed out earlier, adult IQ and genetics have a correlation of roughly 0.8. So you should be worried that the genetic basis for intelligence is weakening due to the general dysgenic trend.

 

Could it be the other way round? Culture/religion making people dumber by shifting what is desirable (or better:Who)?

[cargocultist]

 

 

Religiosity and intelligence are inversely related. This is true for people within one country and also between countries. As I pointed out earlier, adult IQ and genetics have a correlation of roughly 0.8. So you should be worried that the genetic basis for intelligence is weakening due to the general dysgenic trend.

 

Could it be the other way round? Culture/religion making people dumber by shifting what is desirable (or better:Who)?

 

A correlation of 0.8 was established in many studies of monozygotic twins who share nearly 100% of their genes but were separated at birth. This is in line with much other research. Reading to children, for example, has no effect on the development of reading ability when genetics are factored in. It's really shocking to many people but this is the truth: intelligence, behavior and crime are predominately dependent on genetics. 

 

There's even research suggesting that homogeneous improvements in the environment for all are more valuable to high IQ people. That is to say, the environments amplifies genetic differences. For this reason, amongst others, capitalism is unstable.

 

The explanation is rather simple. I suggest you look into Metcalfe's law, which says the value of a network scales quadratically with its number of nodes . It can be applied to the brain if it is viewed as a network of neurons. Another factor, which is not included in his law, is the speed of transmission of the network. I suggest a linear relation for value there, but it is probably superlinear because the brain is lossy. If you then consider "the environment" as everything not biologically part of the individual and this environment is considered a network of its own (like in The Matrix) and if you then consider the interaction of the brain with the environment, an interesting picture emerges. The solution is unstable when individuals with different genetic endowments are compared!   

 

People who start off with a better brain in terms of speed and complexity gain more from the environment due to the quadratic aspect of Metcalfe's law. The smart get smarter and the rich get richer. In practice this means, for example, that different children watch different TV shows and absorb information differently. It means that TV is not the problem.

Edited by cargocultist, 15 April 2014 - 08:47 PM.

[addx]

I'd say such studies would need to discern from theistic and "atheistic religions". I do believe there is nothing in buddhism for example that in any way promotes low intelligence.

[A941]

@cargocultist

So do you think that inteligence is somehow connected with skincolor, and if so what would be the reason?

[cargocultist]

@cargocultist

So do you think that inteligence is somehow connected with skincolor, and if so what would be the reason?

 

The connection is predominantly indirect. Skin color reflects the evolutionary history of a group. People who live in harsher environment, with colder winters in particular, have a lower exposure to sunlight and develop lighter skins. The hypothesis is that these harsher environments also select for higher intelligence, better cooperative abilities and perhaps introspection --> higher rates of unipolar depression amongst lighter skinned individuals.

 

As I pointed out in a previous posts, there may additionally be a direct connection between melanin and neurocognition. Although blacks have the same amounts melanin in their substantia nigra (which is called such because it's actually dark from the melanin in it) they do seem to be strongly protected from developing Parkinson's. Suggesting that skin melanin has an effect on brain dopamine levels.

 

The latter is particularly interesting. Blacks have higher rates of all sorts of diseases, at least some of which are probably related to low vitamin D status or a serious deficiency. Many of these are inflammatory diseases and so is parkinson's. You'd expect a higher incidence of parkinson's amongst blacks. There must be a strongly protective effect when blacks have a much lower incidence. Skin melanin is the most plausible.

[1kgcoffee]

cargocultist,

I don't know how anyone can argue that intelligence and behavior are not largely dependent on genetics, and I'm not offended by the idea that it is possible for isolated populations of the same species to have significant physical and mental differences. But with this eugenics thing - are you arguing that people have more rights the smarter they are? Or that some authority has the right to decide who gets to reproduce?
 

The problem with eugenics is that it is too damn slow and walks all over the rights of normal, well-behaved yet below average people. White nationalism is flawed, because, as you have admitted, white Europeans do not have a monopoly on good genes and nazi ideals can never exist in a free society. This is why I am an into the whole transhumanism thing. We're going to bridge the gap between man and superman (I hope) not with slow authoritarian selection but by a massive leap of science supported by free individuals over only a few short generations.

 

As a staunch capitalist, I'm also interested to know your views on capitalism. You're right that it's unstable (dynamic equilibrium) but do you consider that a bad thing?