Category: Human Behavior and Cognitive Science

  • Do Animals Experience Racism?

    YES, SINCE “RACE” AMOUNTS TO KIN AND FITNESS
    But let’s look into this since Marxist – Postmodern pseudoscience has done such a wonderful job spreading falsehoods to the postwar generations.

    All animals demonstrate both (a) kin selection bias (genetic persistence), (c) fitness bias (quality). Otherwise they would be evolutionary dead ends – and eventually die out.

    Humans, who are reproductively indifferent from other animals, demonstrate both kin, and fitness bias. (And we can measure it).

    Humans demonstrate every possible bias IMAGINABLE. With males less discriminatory than females, for obvious reasons of reproductive cost.

    The differences between the races provide genetic(reproductie) class (social and reproductive, and economic/cooperative (social, reproductive, and economic) discretion of fitness. And yes, your race, subrace, tribal, and most of all genetic and social class, determine your reproductive value. (Attractiveness).

    The differences between the races are largely pedomorphic (endocrinal and developmental.)

    There is indeed a maximum degree of pedomorphism that humans find attractive, which appears to correlate with peak early fertility.

    The races demonstrate different degrees of pedomorphism while retaining adult maximums.

    Evolution has only so many inexpensive channels (series of mutually dependent genetic causal relations) to work with and the cheapest and fastest is that which controls rates and depths of maturity.

    Asians have greater pedomorphism, but lower adult maximums. Whites have next greater pedomorphism but higher adult maximums. Northern europeans are about equally attractive across genders, slavs biased toward female, east asians toward female, and the rest of the world physically male, particularly Africans whose men are physically amazing, and the rest of the world is biased male (steppe and desert) or in the case of southeast asians, balanced with shallower but faster maturity. Although there is great variation within groups, the distribution tends to hold at the race, subrace, tribe and clan levels. (We can measure these things, however it’s pretty obvious to anyone who travels the world.)

    So while every group has some more preferable traits among some of its members, and less preferable traits among other members, what is preferable remains constant across all peoples. And by and large, with universal demonstration, our reproductive social desirability produces a hierarchy of genetic, reproductive, social, intellectual, and economic distribution of races, tries, clans and classes.

    However, this really amounts to *how successful has each race, subrace, tribe, and clan been at the elimination of its undesirables?* Because, painfully or not, that is what separates the most successful peoples (east asians and europeans) from the less successful peoples – which is evident not only in the distribution of morphological features, but in the distribution of behavioral and especially intellectual features.

    We can develop more feminine or more masculine traits regardless of gender. And the different groups demonstrate greater or less pedomorphism, and gender bias in morphology and behavior. The subtler parts of cognitive differences and behavioral differences are subtle enough to identify but we lack the data and means of measurement to be more certain of them. Although most are identifiable in infants and toddlers regardless of where they are raised. Genes matter

    DATA DOESN’T LIE. PEOPLE LOVE TO LIE. EQUALITY IS JUST ANOTHER ABRAHAMIC PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC LIE for the purpose of reversing evolution in favor of the underclasses, JUST AS ABRAHAMIC RELIGION WAS A LIE for the purpose of reversing evolution in favor of pastoralists.

    The fact that we humans are marginally indifferent for the purposes of cross kin and class cooperation, does not mean we are equal in class or cross-class value to ourselves, one another, our polities, all polities, or the future of mankind.

    The bottom is about five or six times as damaging as the top can compensate for. Which is why some countries cannot exit poverty.

    Evolution is not kind. The universe cares nothing for us. We are a convenient accident in the galactic suburbs made possible by improbable coincidences and the tendency for life to form as yet another means of preventing entropy.

    Each of us is more or less sensitive to differences, some of us temporal and some of us intertemporal. This sensitivity reflects reproductive differences in necessities and there mirrors largely the distribution of male and female brain structures, cognitive, and personality biases. Some people are simply more ‘discriminating’ than others are. Some’s discrimination is limited and some is broad. There are evolutionarily obvious reasons for the distribution of our sensitivity to differences. The least able less, the more able more. Because reproductively that’s necessary.

    Some more discriminating about now and interpersonal frictions and opportunities, and some of us about intergenerational frictions and opportunities. And that is largely what demarcates political preferences, moral biases, personality traits, and brain structures.

    Cheers.

    https://www.quora.com/Do-animals-experience-racism

  • Do Animals Experience Racism?

    YES, SINCE “RACE” AMOUNTS TO KIN AND FITNESS
    But let’s look into this since Marxist – Postmodern pseudoscience has done such a wonderful job spreading falsehoods to the postwar generations.

    All animals demonstrate both (a) kin selection bias (genetic persistence), (c) fitness bias (quality). Otherwise they would be evolutionary dead ends – and eventually die out.

    Humans, who are reproductively indifferent from other animals, demonstrate both kin, and fitness bias. (And we can measure it).

    Humans demonstrate every possible bias IMAGINABLE. With males less discriminatory than females, for obvious reasons of reproductive cost.

    The differences between the races provide genetic(reproductie) class (social and reproductive, and economic/cooperative (social, reproductive, and economic) discretion of fitness. And yes, your race, subrace, tribal, and most of all genetic and social class, determine your reproductive value. (Attractiveness).

    The differences between the races are largely pedomorphic (endocrinal and developmental.)

    There is indeed a maximum degree of pedomorphism that humans find attractive, which appears to correlate with peak early fertility.

    The races demonstrate different degrees of pedomorphism while retaining adult maximums.

    Evolution has only so many inexpensive channels (series of mutually dependent genetic causal relations) to work with and the cheapest and fastest is that which controls rates and depths of maturity.

    Asians have greater pedomorphism, but lower adult maximums. Whites have next greater pedomorphism but higher adult maximums. Northern europeans are about equally attractive across genders, slavs biased toward female, east asians toward female, and the rest of the world physically male, particularly Africans whose men are physically amazing, and the rest of the world is biased male (steppe and desert) or in the case of southeast asians, balanced with shallower but faster maturity. Although there is great variation within groups, the distribution tends to hold at the race, subrace, tribe and clan levels. (We can measure these things, however it’s pretty obvious to anyone who travels the world.)

    So while every group has some more preferable traits among some of its members, and less preferable traits among other members, what is preferable remains constant across all peoples. And by and large, with universal demonstration, our reproductive social desirability produces a hierarchy of genetic, reproductive, social, intellectual, and economic distribution of races, tries, clans and classes.

    However, this really amounts to *how successful has each race, subrace, tribe, and clan been at the elimination of its undesirables?* Because, painfully or not, that is what separates the most successful peoples (east asians and europeans) from the less successful peoples – which is evident not only in the distribution of morphological features, but in the distribution of behavioral and especially intellectual features.

    We can develop more feminine or more masculine traits regardless of gender. And the different groups demonstrate greater or less pedomorphism, and gender bias in morphology and behavior. The subtler parts of cognitive differences and behavioral differences are subtle enough to identify but we lack the data and means of measurement to be more certain of them. Although most are identifiable in infants and toddlers regardless of where they are raised. Genes matter

    DATA DOESN’T LIE. PEOPLE LOVE TO LIE. EQUALITY IS JUST ANOTHER ABRAHAMIC PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC LIE for the purpose of reversing evolution in favor of the underclasses, JUST AS ABRAHAMIC RELIGION WAS A LIE for the purpose of reversing evolution in favor of pastoralists.

    The fact that we humans are marginally indifferent for the purposes of cross kin and class cooperation, does not mean we are equal in class or cross-class value to ourselves, one another, our polities, all polities, or the future of mankind.

    The bottom is about five or six times as damaging as the top can compensate for. Which is why some countries cannot exit poverty.

    Evolution is not kind. The universe cares nothing for us. We are a convenient accident in the galactic suburbs made possible by improbable coincidences and the tendency for life to form as yet another means of preventing entropy.

    Each of us is more or less sensitive to differences, some of us temporal and some of us intertemporal. This sensitivity reflects reproductive differences in necessities and there mirrors largely the distribution of male and female brain structures, cognitive, and personality biases. Some people are simply more ‘discriminating’ than others are. Some’s discrimination is limited and some is broad. There are evolutionarily obvious reasons for the distribution of our sensitivity to differences. The least able less, the more able more. Because reproductively that’s necessary.

    Some more discriminating about now and interpersonal frictions and opportunities, and some of us about intergenerational frictions and opportunities. And that is largely what demarcates political preferences, moral biases, personality traits, and brain structures.

    Cheers.

    https://www.quora.com/Do-animals-experience-racism

  • You know, predators vary dramatically but most that are successful are in the 15

    You know, predators vary dramatically but most that are successful are in the 15% range. Predators in packs dramatically increase their hit rate. Wolves are hard to measure today but they’re in the 15-20% range. Surprisingly domestic cats are freaking death machines, and are so successful that they don’t even eat a third of their kills. Surprisingly, but obvious if you give it some thought, afaik the hit rate for the wild dogs of africa is around 85%. They are freaking amazing hunters in packs. The problem is that they can’t defend it, and lose something like half of their kills to bigger predators. Now, the thing that always strikes me about cats and dogs and wolves, is that we are all ‘friends’ so to speak. I’m trying to find any reasonable data on human hunting success rates in history, but the problem is that we expanded so fast into increasingly foreign territories that it sure looks like (from the extinction rates) it was, like cats, and packs of dogs and wolves, a pretty high success rate.
  • You know, predators vary dramatically but most that are successful are in the 15

    You know, predators vary dramatically but most that are successful are in the 15% range. Predators in packs dramatically increase their hit rate. Wolves are hard to measure today but they’re in the 15-20% range. Surprisingly domestic cats are freaking death machines, and are so successful that they don’t even eat a third of their kills.

    Surprisingly, but obvious if you give it some thought, afaik the hit rate for the wild dogs of africa is around 85%. They are freaking amazing hunters in packs. The problem is that they can’t defend it, and lose something like half of their kills to bigger predators.

    Now, the thing that always strikes me about cats and dogs and wolves, is that we are all ‘friends’ so to speak.

    I’m trying to find any reasonable data on human hunting success rates in history, but the problem is that we expanded so fast into increasingly foreign territories that it sure looks like (from the extinction rates) it was, like cats, and packs of dogs and wolves, a pretty high success rate.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-16 19:00:00 UTC

  • You know, predators vary dramatically but most that are successful are in the 15

    You know, predators vary dramatically but most that are successful are in the 15% range. Predators in packs dramatically increase their hit rate. Wolves are hard to measure today but they’re in the 15-20% range. Surprisingly domestic cats are freaking death machines, and are so successful that they don’t even eat a third of their kills. Surprisingly, but obvious if you give it some thought, afaik the hit rate for the wild dogs of africa is around 85%. They are freaking amazing hunters in packs. The problem is that they can’t defend it, and lose something like half of their kills to bigger predators. Now, the thing that always strikes me about cats and dogs and wolves, is that we are all ‘friends’ so to speak. I’m trying to find any reasonable data on human hunting success rates in history, but the problem is that we expanded so fast into increasingly foreign territories that it sure looks like (from the extinction rates) it was, like cats, and packs of dogs and wolves, a pretty high success rate.
  • Retweeted Kevin MacDonald (@TOOEdit): “mathematicians and scientists scored sign

    Retweeted Kevin MacDonald (@TOOEdit): “mathematicians and scientists scored significantly higher than humanities & social sciences students,confirming that autistic conditions are associated with scientific skills.” Very smart White people but no feeling for their people. https://t.co/xWYs3bRjJP
  • Retweeted Kevin MacDonald (@TOOEdit): “mathematicians and scientists scored sign

    Retweeted Kevin MacDonald (@TOOEdit):

    “mathematicians and scientists scored significantly higher than humanities & social sciences students,confirming that autistic conditions are associated with scientific skills.”

    Very smart White people but no feeling for their people.

    https://t.co/xWYs3bRjJP


    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-16 18:37:00 UTC

  • Retweeted Kevin MacDonald (@TOOEdit): “mathematicians and scientists scored sign

    Retweeted Kevin MacDonald (@TOOEdit): “mathematicians and scientists scored significantly higher than humanities & social sciences students,confirming that autistic conditions are associated with scientific skills.” Very smart White people but no feeling for their people. https://t.co/xWYs3bRjJP
  • I’m stating a fact. Little girls in the school yard use rallying and shaming in

    I’m stating a fact. Little girls in the school yard use rallying and shaming in the framing of emotional currency (ostracism). Adults talk of incentives, truth, and exchanges vs thefts.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-16 12:45:55 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/953246938790494209

    Reply addressees: @Imperius__13

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/953246558430035968


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/953246558430035968

  • I’m stating a fact. if we analyze incentives the purpose of psychologizing alway

    I’m stating a fact. if we analyze incentives the purpose of psychologizing always was, and remains, a means of pseudoscientific gossip for the purpose of rallying and shaming, for the purpose of obscuring thefts ethical, moral, political.

    Sorry. It’s just TRUE.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-16 12:21:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/953240905007403008

    Reply addressees: @Imperius__13

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/953239329979224065


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/953239329979224065