Source: Facebook

THE CONQUEST OF PROGRESSIVE PSEUDOSCIENCE IS A SISYPHEAN TASK

Thanks to postmodernist indoctrination, this kind of nonsensical argument is as difficult to suppress as that of your average rothbardian dogma.

—“Given how much difference there is from individual to individual within the same ethnic group, drawing broad general conclusions about individuals because they’re part of a particular ethnic group borders on ridiculous.”—

(NOTE: Dave is wrong on the first half of the sentence, and right on the second half. You cannot generalize from a group to its members, but you an generalize from members to a group. The problem is that this has absolutely nothing to do with the first half, which is nonsense. And I do like and support dave’s sentimental arguments. So this post is more about the useful idiot that follows.)

Your statement is fallacious albeit common. People universally ACT with racial preferences, and differences in distributions of reproductively immaterial alleles is not the the same as variations in distributions of reproductively significant alleles. But then if you knew enough about genetics to understand that basic principle you would not venture to make such statements.

Read jayman’s blog.

>>Dave Kozak

Curt, its always somewhat cryptic and unconvincing with you, bud, you gotta adopt some clearer communication methods

>>Curt Doolittle. Sorry man. Language of morality is intuitionist, while language of science is not, it is empirical, and requires specific knowledge of the domain.

Meaning that unless you have mastery of a field like genetics you should not use it in argument and thus prove Dunning Kreuger that unconscious incompetence is endemic to man.

>>USEFUL IDIOT<< —“People universally ACT with racial preferences”—

(1) Experiments with babies have shown some slight preferences for strangers of their own race vs strangers of other races. Perhaps caused by degree of resemblance to the mother? But those are only slight preference, and only in babies.

(2) Childhood experiences (and sometimes indoctrination) can lead to extreme racial preferences, or to no racial preferences.

(3) There may be a genetic factor that causes people to have more empathy for their “tribe” than for outsiders. But one of the main causes of human progress has been the expansion of what is considered one’s “tribe.” Due to experience (both individual and social) and reason, more and more people are acting more and more like their “tribe” is the whole human race. (Personally, I also include bonobos in my tribe.)

(4) Furthermore, the expansion of empathy is only a small part of the expansion of the “tribe.” By using their highly evolved brains, people have discovered that trade is more beneficial than war and that you don’t have to like somebody to trade with them. Civilization is the art of trading with people you don’t like.

>>CURT<<

1) A great example of poor reasoning based upon ignorance of the material. The reason people have an affinity in-group is because of the desirability of individuals in-group vs out group, and the hierarchy of desirability between groups. Second, status signals within group are ‘cheaper’ than out group or cross group signals so except at the margins we benefit from the cost of ingroup signals in selecting mates. Third, is that groups possess materially different norms and behaviors and trends (particularly impulsivity) and that familiarity with signals discounts the cost of mating opportunities and the ability to select possible mates.

I know the data, and I have it down pretty cold. This is how it is. It’s in our reproductive interests in all but marginal cases, to mate in group. That’s why we do it. It’s not because we are stupid and conservative. It’ s because by and large it’s good.

For example, look at high genetic collision areas of the globe and you will find more asymmetry, and therefore less desirability. That is because there is a maximum amount of outbreeding just like a maximum amount of inbreeding that preserves desirability and fitness. Otherwise (which you can see in germanic versus slavic and scandinavian groups) selection does not preserve desirable traits.

So the error in the first example, is confusing the distribution of alleles and tendencies, with the reproductive VALUE of different distributions of alleles to each individual actor in the process of selection.

2) The second point is another example of a logical fallacy. The fact that sometimes portions of the sky are pink, does not mean it is truthful to say that the sky is not blue. Exceptions demonstrate the rule, they do not falsify it. In the example you give, it is ADVANTAGEOUS to associate within group, that’s why people do it. That’s why even in teh states, minorities (including the white minority now) congregate in neighborhoods – because they prefer to, and because economically, our races are largely stratified in demonstrated abilities, as well as reproductive desirability.

3) —“But one of the main causes of human progress has been the expansion of what is considered one’s “tribe.” “—

That is true. That does not mean tribes are infinitely expandable, or that it is in our genetic interests, reproductive interests, or social interests to expand them infinitely – since they would just splinter as they do in hispanic/black groups which are divided into status layers by the whiteness of their skin. and new tribes would emerge, as always do, or that we wold form castes as we currently are in the west, and that the Hindus have done, and to some degree the chinese have done. A caste is just a tribal hierarchy under a single government, rather than a tribal peerage under separate governments. The difference is merely one of word games. Word games that attempt to justify an expansionary state.

We cannot fight our genes. We can merely work with them. Organisms that try to fight their genes do not survive. Just as westerners are being colonized and exterminated – apparently our genes are unfit for survival.

5) —“Furthermore, the expansion of empathy”—

this is another verbal fallacy. What is extended is not empathy, but trust, and that trust is extended by the enforcement of property rights and the prohibition on cousin marriage. Neither of which are enforced in the muslim world for example, and only some of which are enforced in Asia.

It is incredibly disconcerting that even educated folk are the victims of pervasive pseudoscience. It’s not your fault really. The postmodernists did it to you on purpose. The millennials and their institutionalized ignorance are the culmination of the progressive pseudoscientific experiment.

Thankfully science has been dismantling progressive and postmodern pseudoscience since 2001, and if it continues it will be erased almost as fast as it was created.

>>USEFUL IDIOT<<<

Curt, do you want to return to mandatory sterilizations of “genetically inferior” people?

Do you want to outlaw interracial marriages?

Do you want mandatory racial segregation?

Cousin marriages?

Charles Darwin married his cousin. And there were many cousin marriages in their illustrious family tree.

Cousin marriages were extremely common throughout the world for most of history.

>>CURT<<

Ray,

Sigh. Another progressive postmodernist using postmodern argumentative technique. Works on the idiots, but not on non-idiots. So, yet again, lets look at your two (dishonest and fallacious) responses. Because as a moral man, it is my responsibility to clean the intellectual commons, just as it is to clean the ecosystem. Both types of pollution are ones responsibility.

1) If you were to read, (I know that is hard work) but to study the evolution of marriage, we started out in consanguineous bands without prohibitions on inbreeding, and slowly increased the prohibitions on inbreeding. As much as 40% of muslim marriages are to first cousins, representing a disproportionate number of birth defects in the UK for example. But more importantly, low trust societies do not extend familial (kinship) trust to non-kin, while high trust societies prohibit inbreeding (in the west, as far out as eight generations). The church did this to interrupt the inheritance of land, and break up the noble families so that it could purchase land more cheaply and easily, but the net consequence was the high trust of western civilization – at least above the Hanjal line (protestant europe). When everyone in your city is a potential family member, you treat them as such. When only cousins are potential family members you do not treat non family members as such. Now, it turns out, that breeding with your cousins, or at least outside of first cousins, is pretty good genetic practice, but doesn’t produce high trust. The slavs are in general better looking people than germans for this reason. Sufficient inbreeding and sufficient outbreeding. SO it is trust and min/max genetics that are in your interest. The balance is best achieved in the small scandinavian countries that are fully outbred, but are small enough that they’re all effectively cousins. This allows universalism, while maintaining genetic homogeneity sufficient for selection pressures to function. or it did until recently. But the most important is, that people will not redistribute across racial and cultural lines (as we see in the EU). And so the less diverse the population the higher the trust and the more willingness (in fact, enthusiasm for) redistribution. So effectively we can choose freedom and redistribution and homogeneity(Scandinavia), or diversity and totalitarianism and intolerance for redistribution(USA).

2) –“Mandatory sterilizations”—

Well, aside from the fact that this is a dishonest argumentation tactic in the categories of (a) distraction from your failure to answer the argument (b) rallying and shaming which is an attempt to accuse your opponent of immorality, which is a variation of an ad hominem (c) fallacy of extremes which is to use an extreme case to answer a general case – and that these tactics are usually limited to freshmen college girls – or at least girls with a lousy education – I will respond anyway, and point out that.

That I point out the fallacy of your denial of the universal demonstration of racial preferences and the pseudoscientific arguments that you rely upon, does not mean I advocate either (a) sterilization or (b) behavior-mandating laws. Quite the contrary, it means that you are merely engaged in propagandizing, lying, or ignorance, and doing harm to society by propagating falsehoods that ENCOURAGE the institution of immoral laws such as those currently used to punish white males in particular, but whites in general by giving favorable treatment to non-whites. You may attempt to point the figure of blame at me, but it is merely another example of the success that postmodernists have had in indoctrinating Stalins’ “useful idiots” into the postmodern cause.

I don’t really know if you are propagandizing, lying, ignorant or stupid, but in any case, you are still incorrect, and engaging in deception, whatever the reason.

Just how it is.

READING LIST FOR THE ANTI-PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC MOVEMENT

Ricardo Duchesne: The Uniqueness of Western Civilization

JP Mallory: In Search of Indo Europeans

John Keegan: A History Of Warfare

Joseph Campbell : The Hero’s Journey

Karen Armstrong : The Great Transformation

William Tucker: Marriage and Civilization

Emmanuel Todd: The Explanation of Ideology

Emmanuel Todd: The Invention of Europe

Daniel Hannan: Inventing Freedom

Alan MacFarlane : Origins of English Individualism

Gregory Clark: A Farewell to Alms

Matt Ridley: The Red Queen

Dale Petersen: Demonic Males

Steven Pinker: The Better Angels of Our Nature

Daniel Kahneman: Thinking, Fast and Slow

Francis Fukuyama: Trust

Sam Harris : Lying

Steven Pinker : The Blank Slate

Jonathan Haidt: The Righteous Mind

Stephen Hicks : Explaining Postmodernism

Hans Hoppe: Democracy The God That Failed