What's Sup Forumss opinion on this book? Came out two years ago, and a bunch of geneticists said he misrepresented their research and is rayyyyyycis, but none of them seemed to provide any specifics about what he got wrong.
Any other good books Sup Forums can recommend about human biodiversity?
>but none of them seemed to provide any specifics about what he got wrong.
That's because he didn't get anything wrong. They're just booty bothered about the implications.
Not necessarily biodiversity, but pic related was phenomenal. By the same guy who wrote "The Emperor of All Maladies", another excellent history lesson on biochemical medicine.
Most of the information is fairly agreeable to what's found in The Greatest Show on Earth
Yeah, that's what I figured, but how do I convince normies? If the research is sound then I'll write my philosophy paper on it, arguing that even if there are innate differences in humans, that doesn't mean we should abandon universal ethics (and if anything, means we should extend our ethics to include all intelligent life, since there isn't a meaningful ontological distinction you can make between Koko the gorilla and the Kalahari bushmen)
What's it about?
Anti-slide bump
There is no such thing as Universal Ethics. We should abandon them. Fuck human rights and fuck equality.
History of genetics, with a heavy focus on the modern era and techniques (i.e. not another rehash of Mendel). Sporadically, he deals with the looming realization of his own defective genome - his family has a strong history of mental illness onset at around 50. Mukherjee's writing is top notch. Like I said, if you haven't heard of this, look up the emperor of all maladies. He won a great deal of awards for it, and had a pbs documentary made by Ken Burns, which was a great companion as well.
You're an idiot; changing the consensus isn't going to work by going full 1488 on people. It's much easier to slip in the core idea of there being innate human differences when it's wrapped in nice language. Learn to into power games.
Thanks, I'll take a look at this. If I can establish that there are innate human differences as a scientifically defensible position, it becomes a lot easier to argue against race-mixing and forced diversity.
Haven't read the book but it'll be at least a few years before human biodiversity realism hits the mainstream. The establishment is burying it as hard as they can to promote unending immigration to destroy white nations and promote globalism.
>a bunch of geneticists said he misrepresented their research and is rayyyyyycis, but none of them seemed to provide any specifics about what he got wrong.
wtf i hate geneticists now
Nice dubs. And I'm fully aware of that, but I want to be a part of changing the consensus on campus by bringing some of these ideas to light.
I don't know if you are going to be able to. Have you read the whole primitive human migration argument in relation to the creation of race? In other words the relationships between altitude, folic acid, melanin, and ultraviolet radiation? It kind of kills a genetic linkage for intelligence or behavior with race.
Also, not trying to argue, and I'm white, just in case.
Things like this will eventually reach a natural equilibrium.
There is clearly an element of structural racism present in society today that prevents non-whites from doing as well. I mean, I'm a outright racist. I'd be crazy to deny that there isn't a level of subconscious bias at work.
But eventually all the anti-racist measures, policies, training and ethics will remove the structural imbalances, and just leave the natural genetic variation ever more evident and undeniable.
You can see it already happening in some scientific quarters, where changes to society/culture are having no tangible difference.
Yeah, I had a prof. expose me to that line of thinking, but it fails to explain why Africa was more or less in the stone age until the Europeans started showing up, or why the Australian Aborigines failed to ever develop beyond tribalism. Also the dishonesty of the environmentalists such as Stephen Jay Gould who deliberately lied about the relation of relative skull-size to body mass and intelligence in his book "The mismeasure of man" for politically expedient reasons.
And this isn't a neutral or non-issue, as we are currently basing our policies and models of the world on the assumptions of the standard social science model perpetuated by thinkers like Lewontin, Margaret Mead and Franz Boaz, who refuse to acknowledge the effect of genetics in explaining human realities.
Biology is crashing into ideology, and I look forward to tearing down every single pretension of the Marxist ideologues who are currently attempting to string up Prof. Pederson at the University of Toronto for daring to tell the truth.
>In other words the relationships between altitude, folic acid, melanin, and ultraviolet radiation? It kind of kills a genetic linkage for intelligence or behavior with race.
What the fuck are you on about?
And I couldn't disagree more strongly. Programs like affirmative action will refuse to acknowledge any possible biological explanation for why nigs are such nigs, to the result that by pushing less qualified candidates into positions of responsibility and authority, they have discredited every other minority individual who would have got in based purely on merit. How do I know that the black doctor who prescribing me medication was a good student, and not a diversity hire?
I'm a big proponent of biology tearing down ideology. However, the former part of your response, I don't know enough about to comment on, or i.e. it sounds like you are heading down the right path, but I'm not that well versed in current genetics journal articles to comment. I hope you find what you are looking for, though, leaf.
Anthropology and epigenetics are legit branches of science that are about to die BECAUSE OF THESE FUCKING HIPPY LOSERS.
Instead we now have idiots getting degrees in 'how to shove my fucking opinion in someone's throat'.
> Booo that's rayyyyycisss
> FEEEELINGSSSS
> singwithme FEEEEEEEEELINGSSS
asdf
>innate human differences
As in races? Innate meaning what? There are innate differences between individuals, so it would follow that groups of individuals have innate differences as well.
Basic evolutionary argument. As humans migrated out of Africa (or from different regions, multi regional hypothesis isn't confirmed or denied at this point IIRC), humans gradually became less melinated in order to produce sufficient vitamin D, which is a necessary component in the production of folic acid, a very important acid produced during pregnancy which ensures the baby will be healthy (paraphrasing here), to the effect that individuals who did not become lighter skinned as they moved farther north would have had less children, thus providing a reasonable explanation for why humans have evolved different skin tones.
The problem with that theory isn't that it's incorrect, it's that it conveniently ignores the possibility (and evidence) that human evolution has not stopped, and has not affected the brain such that average intelligence and behavioral traits would be affected.
With more research coming out showing that intelligence is up to 70% heritable, and the big five personality traits are up to 50% heritable, that raises some extremely profound questions about what we think human nature is, having enormous implications on our political dialogues which assume a Blank slate, leading to the modern day denial of human nature (ie: biology) to the effect that we have people denying that there exists a normal expression of dimorphic sexual differences. Steven Pinker talks about this at length in the book "The Blank Slate"
Relax, anthropology is alive in Russia, at least it was last I checked. We were taught to identify races, and the prof even suggested we practice this by trying to guess races of people you see on the bus and such, just by looking at their faces, hair, height etc.
Differences in propensity towards violence, intelligence, the big five personality traits (Openness, Conscientiousness, Extroversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism)
Not to mention that research from individuals like Richard Putnam demonstrate that the more ethnically diverse a population is, the less they trust each other, again raising profound questions about what we think our society should look like if there will always exist a biologically rooted distrust of people that will not be "educated away", not matter how hard the ideologues try. Take a look at kin-selection theory and altruism
How is this skin color argument ignores human evolution? It quite literally requires you to accept it. The same way skin color evolved so did the brain. It's the same theory is it not?
Unfortunately, we've been cucked pretty hard over here in North America. Race is a gauche topic, mostly stemming from collective denouncement about what we've been taught about WW2. The mere mention of eugenics is enough to raise eyebrows.
I'll give the sparknotes because I'm not typing out the entire explanation, especially when you could look it up in any biochemistry or advanced physiology textbook. The abbreviated version:
>first humans in africa
>Need sunlight (ultraviolet radiation) for healthy development (Vitamin D)
>Need folic acid for healthy development (especially pregnant females)
>too much ultraviolet radiation fucks folic acid
>melanin (pigment) in melanocytes partially blocks sunlight, which means humans (black in africa) get optimum VD and protect folic acid, as well as their genome
>migration occurs east to asia
>Too much melanin blocks out all ultraviolet radiation since sun exposure is less here
>Therefore lighter skin
>Exception: Tibet is at high altitude - need more melanin, thus skin darker
> Migrate to europe; no need for melanin since not much sunlight, and melanin would block - Thus white
> migrate to americas, specifically south america
>pigment shows back up because closer to equator = more sun exposure
>places like Brazil have darker skin tone
The migration pattern is known, and it shows the addition and removal of melanin concentrations unrelated to any other genetic factors (i.e. intelligence). Not reviewing typos, so please forgive them.
Do you recommend the Blank Slate?
That's just the thing, is that there has been a consistent and deliberate attempt to separate the two, such that people will literally deny that there is any difference between a white man from Britain, and the Kalahari bushmen in sub-Sahara Africa, and that the only difference is culture and circumstance.
But differences in population IQ, and a biological account of humans is literally the only explanation which can account for an enormous range of seemingly disparate, but interconnected phenomenon, such as Haiti, Rhodesia, and South Africa turning to shit after the Europeans left, or the persistent 15 point IQ gap between black and white students in the United States. The assumed blank slate of human beings is then used to push an enormous amount of legislation surrounding forced ethnic diversity, tolerance for abnormal sexual expressions, and other degenerate behavior.
Trips don't lie friendo
Why do you need to prove these differences exist when they are self-evident? Or do you mean you have to prove it's genetic and not environmental or so other bullshit? Do your opponents accept twin studies? There are many examples of selection that leads to fixation or exculsion of behavioral traits - like the famous fox domestication project which was successful in just like fourty generations.
> Russia, the last bastion of hope.
> As humans migrated out of Africa
I have heard about this a lot and I always have a hard time believing it. Never mind the fact that googles and asians are extremely different in every single aspect, there is also evidence that the most ancient cities are far from Africa, with the exception of Egypt which imho doesn't even count as Africa.
Other than that, you gave some nice information.
Ok let's forget skin color. How about the other features?
kek, the main argument against eugenics that we were given in the uni was that "it would take too long".
Forgot pic related.
Ask the leaf. Like I said in a previous post, I'm not the most knowledgeable in this subject matter (I'm more focused in genetics related to oncology). I was only kicking back the proposed theory.
Not disagreeing by any means with the skull morphology as related to intelligence inheritance. I'm not up to date with genetics journal articles in that particular field.
That's just the thing, nobody here even KNOWS about twin studies because it has become so taboo to talk about. We are constantly told that white privilege and institutional racism are the reason why minorities don't succeed, and even mentioning the IDEA that black people are less intelligent on the whole would be enough to get you fired from your job, and strung up by marxist-leftists. Similarly that if you were to explain why there are less women engineers and more female nurses; it is assumed to merely be the results of a forced upon patriarchy which conditions young girls into thinking that they want kids when what they REALLY want is to play Sex in the City with Jamal and DaQuan. Literally all of modern liberalism is propped up on a denial of what we would normally term 'human nature', which is really just nature and biology.
The double think is incredible. Just look at the olympics 100m sprint- almost no white guys, which would normally conclude lead people to assume that there must be some common factor which is causing there to be an over representation of a specific group of people (which is exactly the case; haplogroups from African ancestry have a greater proportion of fast and slow twitch muscle fibres, to the point that the Kalenjin tribe has won something like 40% of olympic competitions for long distance running)
I am aware that the evolution of skin color is related to the amount of sun exposure.
What I don't understand how skin color evolving due to differing amounts of sunlight has anything to do with there being no differences in intelligence.
I have that pic
>and even mentioning the IDEA that black people are less intelligent on the whole would be enough to get you fired from your job, and strung up by marxist-leftists.
Just look at James Watson (of Watson/Crick fame). Fired from all postions, became persona non grata everywhere, and had to sell his Nobel prize for cash.
THAT'S JUST THE THING THOUGH. "Scientific Racism" wasn't discarded because it wasn't true (as is usually asserted) but because after WW2, it became too politically hot to handle. Cripplechan's /polarchive/ has a full dossier on how modern population genetics is confirming what the scientists from the 20th century already knew, but nobody wants to put the pieces together (in public) because the conditioned response to accusations of racism is too strong to overcome without hard, hard evidence.
Exactly; the liberal's denial of reality has gotten so extreme that they will completely disregard the words of the scientist who literally discovered DNA because he doesn't support their ideology.
I think the underlying assumption is that skin color alone has no relation to intelligence since variation in skin color has a pretty simple physiology mechanism involving very few, well studied genes.
I'm not an expert either hence why I'm trying to be convinced on how can it be possible ONE human branch stayed similar to gorillas and the others look NOTHING alike.
I can understand the skin color arguments, they do make sense.
But the rest?
> The double think is incredible.
Exactly. It infuriates me that absolutely NO ONE is talking about their perks. They only complain about the things they don't have like entitled spoiled kids.
Blacks are superior in sprinting, we all accept it because it's a fact.
Women are better suited for space, we all accept it because it's a fact.
Singapore Koreans and Japs have extremely mechanical brains and thus capable of performing better, we accept it because it's also a fact.
Then you come out and say ONE negative, e.g. googles being very hot-headed and explosive
> BOOOO RAYCISS.
Getting a position in government related to education would be a big help. As soon as these ideas are introduced to children the turnaround is as short as thirty years before the cleansing can commence with broad support.
It'll be a bloodbath without the broad support.
Easy, most people aren't thinking for themselves, so when their professor tells them that human evolution stopped 50,000 years ago, and that the only evolution that we have witnessed is trivial things like skin tone, most people will simple nod their heads and move on, instead of stopping to wonder why evolution would stop at being skin deep. Aren't all human traits influenced by genes? If we see human evolution happening from the neck down, why wouldn't we expect the human brain to have continued to evolve as well? And isn't the brain involved in a whole lot of things like behavior and intelligence? Hey, why are there so many people in my country who don't look like me? And so the propaganda begins to unravel.
If it became public knowledge that our leaders were importing hundreds of thousands of people who will likely be violent, disagreeable unintelligent, and completely unable to integrate into society, our politicians would not remain in office for long.
I don't know, it seems to me the people that peddle bullshit like this don't really care about truth or facts or logic, and therefore reserve the capacity to deny whatever you present them with in favor of their cozy fairytale.
How would you even start to sway a belief so deep-seated is entirely beyond me. In fact if you care about your own well being, it seems wiser to just let those poor souls wallow in their ignorance, maybe even agree with them when you're required to, but at the same time try to surround yourself with the more rational people. Surely there are some left.
Half this commentwas for you.
I'm very agitated today I can't even post properly.
In addition, since migration correlates very closely with altitude, distance from equator, and general sun exposure (ofcourse established over many generations), it is assumed that any other traits have no influence. Remember the migration pattern was africa (black), asia (lighter but depends on location), europe (white), americas (brown).
Also, just to clarify again, I'm not defending the theory by any means. Only regurgitating it.
Hence why I've been so bloody agitated these past couple of weeks. To question the narrative is going up against an entire ideology which will destroy you rather than allow itself to be challenged.
In Canada, it would be seen as racist to even say that black people are naturally better athletes, watch the documentary "Hjernevask" segment on race to see how people react in Norway (Canada is similar in attitudes).
Great comment, but there is one argument.
> it seems wiser to just let those poor souls wallow in their ignorance, maybe even agree with them when you're required to
> The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch them and do nothing.
Apathy is bad.
Strictly there is 'no link' between skin tone and intelligence if they are utilizing different genes.
However sun exposure and the regional climate would be expected to correlate very strongly. An area further north of the equator would be expected to simultaneously have less sunlight and harsher winters.
I think there is some validity in the claim that harsh winters select strongly for people who both have better impulse control, superior planning and resourcefulness.
Skin tone and intelligence may not rely on the same genes, or be selected through entirely the same mechanism but there are valid reasons for believing the two would correlate.
Absolutely agree
> In Canada, it would be seen as racist to even say that black people are naturally better athletes, watch the documentary "Hjernevask" segment on race to see how people react in Norway (Canada is similar in attitudes).
If this 'anti-racism' movement is willing to go as far as deny facts to support its narrative, then it's only reasonable to assume their 'ends' are no good... No good at all.
The connection is that both traits would vary according to haplogroup, which can further be grouped into five continental populations in accordance with the traditional five races (White, Black, Asian, Native North/South American, and Australian Aborigine). The further north you are, the colder the environment = dual selection for intelligence and skin color to survive it. Last I checked, Caucasians have a mean IQ of 100, and East Asians have a mean IQ of 105, which would seem to support the idea of a East Asian master race, except that due to the big five personality traits also being influenced by genes, we can start to piece together why it is that even though every society has access to the same ideas which have made Europe and her colonies great, there hasn't been a comparable result for Africa, and the difference lies in each continent's respective human capital.
Then it becomes a question of why people or groups of people would be willing to distort the facts in order to protect their narratives, and who benefits from it.
On the other hand, now that I think about it, biological determinism can be very depressing. A realization that you truly control only a tiny bit of the overal variance is often a crushing one. Maybe it's better to keep the lid on and let people be blissfully ignorant about it just so that they keep acting the same way they did the whole time until now. Maybe it was those misconceptions that brought prosperity to the western world in the first place. Evolution is after all random to a degree - even the dumbest shitskin can sire an astrophysicist if stars align - but would he be inclined to have children in the first place if he knew that his chances are quite slim? Now a shitskin probably won't trouble himself with such deliberations, but a smarter person could, and while his situation is better, it still might seem not good enough to him. He would be reserved to have kids and in his place a shitskin would leave his above-replacement issue.
But then agian, I am a luddite, so take this with a grain of salt.
Except it is precisely that attitude which has been so damaging, because an over emphasis on human freedom has everyone pointing fingers when we don't see the results that we would expect, like the fact that there have only been something like 70 black women physicists in the United States in the past 40 years, while there have been a comparative 22,000 some white male physicist PhDs.
And we might say, well, what difference does it make if people know this or not? But it makes absolutely every difference in the world at the level of policy and government decisions, where we are allocating millions and millions of dollars to try to solve the nignog problem, and keep stuffing our fingers into our ears when we keep getting back results that we don't like. Just take a look at the Kansas City school experiment- they spent almost 2 billion dollars over 12 years trying to close the black-white IQ gap, to no effect.
cato.org
Or consider the mandatory diversity laws, which, instead of letting employers and employees compete to fill jobs, we have Jamarcus being promoted over John Smith because some idiot in Washington thinks that Jamarcus isn't getting employed because he is the victim of historical oppression instead of being a dumb, lazy, annoying fuckhead.
Or the ever-increasingly shrill screeches of anti-body shaming activists, who want to convince everyone that we should find everyone equally attractive, ignoring common sense, history, and scientific evidence which all support the idea that our conceptions of beauty have evolved alongside considerations of fertility and health, and that aspirational body types are a good thing, as it encourages people to stop being lazy fucks and hit the gym. But again, rather than recognizing the inherent fascism of nature and acting accordingly, leftists stick their fingers in their ears and scream until everyone stops arguing with them, and now these idiots like DUDE WEED man are making decisions on behalf of this entire stupid fucking country.
It's a very lefty thing to do, to cry 'RACISM!' when facts contravene their worldview.
>"Why is it prejudiced? I welcome any and all cogent, rational, and specific instances of folly on my part."
>"W-w-w-w-whaaaaaaaaaa...FUCK YOU!"
>it would be seen as racist to even say that black people are naturally better athletes
Even that depends on the type of black. West Africans and people of mostly WA descent (Caribbean and American blacks) are great sprinters, but are outperformed by East Africans and even whites in long distance running.
They suck at swimming too, and as for sports/games that rely on the participants to think three steps ahead, and/or have good spacial awareness and inherent grasp of geometry (chess, go, snooker, etc) they're comparatively awful
Apart from boxing, sprinting and American football I can't think of many sports where they're much good. Some might say the representation they do get is unfairly great as well, given that they tend to begin puberty earlier than whites and thus appear to be bigger and stronger in their mid-teens, only for their white counterpart to continue their physical development until a later age and thus ultimately achieve equal or greater height/weight/strength. But who does the scout spot when Lafontayne has reached his adult height by fourteen, and the equally-gifted Joe is half-a-foot shorter because he has a half-decade of slow growth ahead of him?
This is a good thread. Enjoyed reading it. Wish we had more like it.
A true determinist would say that we're just too rich now, so rich the selective pressure has entirely disappeared, or rather has shifted to some (unknown to me) modality. Back in the day you pretty much had to have a wife and kids if you wanted to survive. Today the state can afford to keep every retarded freak or unmotivated blob safely on welfare. The corporations can afford to employ X amount of token niggers. The fags can afford to fuck each other in the ass.
It'll all fix itself in due time when it comes crashing down. Sit back and enjoy the travesty.
If you want to try and change something, though, godspeed you. Who knows, maybe you succeed.
indeed, a very good thread