Theme: Ethnoculture

  • GREAT FIND FROM UNZ: EVIDENCE OF NEOTONIC INFLUENCE 1) As some of you know, my a

    GREAT FIND FROM UNZ: EVIDENCE OF NEOTONIC INFLUENCE

    1) As some of you know, my argument is that the principle differences between human groups are caused by variations in the depth of neotney (maturity), because delaying development increases cognitive ability.

    2) Improving conditions and test scores will be “washed out” over time, meaning that adults will demonstrate natural intellectual abilities no matter what we do to children.

    3) this means that hyper-investment in children WILL GET YOU into better schools, but that this doesn’t mean the results will pan out in superior performance lifetime performance – in fact it will have little effect. So the principle value of a good university for example is in thep eople you meet and the access to such opportunities – not the material you are exposed to.

    Which is pretty much the common sense answer that has been around for generations.

    In this sense, tests both do measure relative intelligence, but can be fooled by ‘time compression’ that alters ones position relative to others in the test distribution.



    DECLINE IN FORECAST IQ WITH AGE

    by Peter Frost

    Intellectual capacity is much more malleable in children in adults. This is well known in the IQ literature, including studies on African and Euro Americans. When Dickens and Flynn (2006) analyzed the results of the 2002 standardization sample for the WISC (Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children), they found that IQ starts off high in African American children and then declines with age:

    African-American WISC scores

    Age — IQ

    4 — 95.5

    12 — 90.5

    15 — 88.8

    24 — 84.5

    Dickens and Flynn (2006) similarly note that these scores show a gain of 5-6 points over the scores of black children thirty years earlier. But the decline of black IQ with age has remained stable. This decline also shows up in the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study —a longitudinal study of black, biracial (black/white), and white children adopted into white middle-class Minnesota families (Scarr and Weinberg, 1976; Weinberg, Scarr, and Waldman, 1992). The children’s IQs were measured at 7 years of age and again ten years later:

    ——————- Age 7 Age 17

    Black children –—- 97 — 89

    Biracial children – 109 — 99

    White children –– 112 – 106

    Finally, we see this age effect in a study of children fathered by soldiers stationed in Germany and then raised by German mothers (Eyferth 1961). One third of the children were between 5 and 10 years old and two thirds between 10 and 13 years old. The study found no significant difference in IQ between children with white fathers (83 subjects) and those with black fathers (98 subjects), the mean IQ being about 97 for both groups.

    So Chanda has discovered what many IQ researchers have long known: if you place children in an enriched learning environment, they will do much better on IQ tests. Unfortunately, this improvement will not last. It will “wash out” and disappear by adulthood. This was pointed out by Franz Boas (yes, the same Franz Boas!) in a speech delivered in 1894 under the title “Human Faculty as Determined by Race”:

    “When we compare the capacity for education between the lower and higher races, we find that the great point of divergence is at adolescence and the inference is fairly good that we shall not find in the brains of the lower races the post-pubertal growth in the cortex to which I have just alluded.” (Boas, 1974, p. 234)

    Among humans in general, intellectual capacity seems to decline with age. Indeed, there are statements in the literature that IQ declines from one’s twenties onwards (presumably among European Americans). Is this decline due to natural aging processes? Or is it prewired into the human organism?

    Perhaps the ability to acquire new information became less useful with age in ancestral humans. What we call ‘intelligence’ may have originally been an infant trait that humans lost as they grew up. With the expansion of our cultural environment, natural selection would have progressively extended this infant trait into older age groups, and more so in some populations than in others.

    By way of analogy, lactose tolerance was originally an infant trait and is still so in most human populations. It has become an adult trait in those populations that have long practiced dairy farming and adult consumption of milk.

    References

    Boas, F. (1974). A Franz Boas Reader. The Shaping of American Anthropology, 1883-1911, G.W. Stocking Jr. (ed.), Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Dickens, W.T., and J.R. Flynn. (2006). Black Americans reduce the racial IQ gap. Evidence from standardization samples. Psychological Science, 17, 913-920.

    Eyferth, K. (1961). Leistungen verscheidener Gruppen von Besatzungskindern in Hamburg-Wechsler Intelligenztest für Kinder (HAWIK). Archiv für die gesamte Psychologie, 113, 222-241.

    Scarr, S., and Weinberg, R.A. (1976). IQ test performance of Black children adopted by White families, American Psychologist, 31, 726-739.

    Weinberg, R.A., Scar, S., and Waldman, I.D. (1992). The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study: A follow-up of IQ test performance at adolescence. Intelligence, 16, 117-135.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-10 21:18:00 UTC

  • Ice Ages Determined the Races

    (FB 1539180783 Timestamp) ICE AGES DETERMINED THE RACES [T]his is my current understanding of the races since ‘caucasian’ doesn’t appear to match the data. The mixture of early indo europeans and europeans happens in the caucuses, but the indo-european expansion is cultural and technological, while preserving markers of the original peoples of both european and west asian origins. (I am still getting my arms around this. but we had a too simplistic view of evolution of the races. yes, there are africans (old), coastal peoples (middle), and eurasian peoples(new), but old, middle, and new peoples all continued to evolve in place, and to shift quite a bit in response to the ice age.)

  • The False Promise of Universalism vs … Eugenics

    October 10th, 2018 9:50 AM

    —“Could we come up with a better term than ‘tribalism’ please?”— Marginal Revolution

    OMG….. How about we use operational (scientific language) instead of postmodern (pseudoscientific language)? I mean, is economics a science or a pseudoscience? The world doesn’t need more sophisms. |PACK| Family > Kin > Clan > Tribe > Nation > Civilization > Race = Markets for signals, values, frames, norms, traditions, Laws, Institutions, and group evolutionary strategies REGULATED by the natural law of reciprocity (international law, trade policy ameliorating differences in purchasing power), producing universal EUGENIC reproduction. –versus– |HERD| Individual > Corporation > Universalism = NO MARKETS for signals, values, frames, norms, traditions, Laws, Institutions, and group evolutionary strategies REGULATED by the natural law of reciprocity (international law), instead involuntary transfers between groups producing UNIVERSAL DYSGENIC REPRODUCTION. Economics if anything consists of the full accounting of costs. NOT THE CHERRY PICKING OF RETURNS INDEPENDENT OF COSTS. I don’t make mistakes such as these. The reason is that I don’t engage in cherry-picking (Pseudoscience) Justificationism (sophism) and Postmodern (denial and deceit) “empty verbalism” for the purpose of producing frames that perpetuate the frauds of involuntary transfer, and the spread of dysgenia. Simple facts: those groups that practiced eugenic reproduction under manorialism (east and west) succeeded precisely because of those eugenics, and those that did not, and still do not, are those that struggle. And those that were sold the false promise of universalism whether in the ancient world (the Abrahamic Dark Age and the destruction of all great civilizations of the ancient world), and in the Modern world (marxist-libertarian-postmodern-feminist destruction of the modern world) but lacked the reserve capital (europe, east asia), were sufficiently distracted by the false promise of pseudoscientific sophism, that they have missed the window for using the industrial and technological revolution to organize their societies for eugenic middle class reproduction. Reductive Explanation: The HERD (Universalist) doesn’t know it’s a HERD, but the PACK (Nationalist) knows it’s a pack, and the herd a herd. Selective use of economics to justify an instinct is just pseudoscience. Either you engage in full accounting or you don’t.  

  • The Current Dysgenia

    October 10th, 2018 8:26 AM THE CURRENT DYSGENIA

    1. Colonialism was a profound if not most profound good since the invention of farming – we dragged mankind out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, disease, hard labor, child mortality, early death, suffering, tyranny, and subjectivity to the vicissitudes of nature. Our failure was only in having the european civil wars and leaving our project incomplete.
    2. Slavery was universal and whites were more frequently the subject of it (by muslims) than perpetrators of it. Whites are not malaria-immune but many blacks are. Whites have higher (hotter) metabolisms, and blacks don’t. Whites had to be taken from the criminal class. Africans were captured by other africans as prisoners of war in order to attempt to unify west african empires (which would have happened).

    This meant that the warm weather colonies most able to produce high value goods (particularly sugar) with Africans, and therefore (a) had more survivors, (b) spread the genes of previously constrained peoples to new territories, (c) forcibly modernized both cultures, civilizations and Genes. And it was not ‘known’ that enslaved primitives were capable of civilized behavior at the time. It was only in the 19th century after the industrial revolution that we found that citizens were more profitable than serfs, were more profitable than slaves.

    1. Creating middle classes by resource exploitation, and selling manufactured (value added) goods to developing peoples was the only means possible of dragging the vast body of dirty, ignorant, superstitious, violent, poor, disease ridden, un-domesticated human animals out of of their condition, and reforming their societies incrementally until they themselves could create a middle class civilization capable of self governance without threat to more advanced civilizations.

    I don’t ignore anything. I don’t make mistakes. It’s my job to expose and educate the ignorant, unable, sophomoric, and willingly deceptive. 😉 lol

    1. We treat people as they deserve to be treated, and forcibly domesticate them as we have forcibly domesticated them for 3500 years.
    2. Humans are just another mammal whos dominance hierarchy can be taken over, reproduction controlled through criminal punishment, reproductive suppression, and taxation, leaving only those capable of middle class participation existing.

    This is why the west is rich and the rest of the world is poor: domestication of man.

    1. Meaning, that we have, as have east asians, practiced organized eugenics (self domestication) for thousands of years. A process that was Reversed unfortunately by the industrial revolution, which has led to the current dysgenia.
  • Ice Ages Determined the Races

    (FB 1539180783 Timestamp) ICE AGES DETERMINED THE RACES [T]his is my current understanding of the races since ‘caucasian’ doesn’t appear to match the data. The mixture of early indo europeans and europeans happens in the caucuses, but the indo-european expansion is cultural and technological, while preserving markers of the original peoples of both european and west asian origins. (I am still getting my arms around this. but we had a too simplistic view of evolution of the races. yes, there are africans (old), coastal peoples (middle), and eurasian peoples(new), but old, middle, and new peoples all continued to evolve in place, and to shift quite a bit in response to the ice age.)

  • The False Promise of Universalism vs … Eugenics

    October 10th, 2018 9:50 AM

    —“Could we come up with a better term than ‘tribalism’ please?”— Marginal Revolution

    OMG….. How about we use operational (scientific language) instead of postmodern (pseudoscientific language)? I mean, is economics a science or a pseudoscience? The world doesn’t need more sophisms. |PACK| Family > Kin > Clan > Tribe > Nation > Civilization > Race = Markets for signals, values, frames, norms, traditions, Laws, Institutions, and group evolutionary strategies REGULATED by the natural law of reciprocity (international law, trade policy ameliorating differences in purchasing power), producing universal EUGENIC reproduction. –versus– |HERD| Individual > Corporation > Universalism = NO MARKETS for signals, values, frames, norms, traditions, Laws, Institutions, and group evolutionary strategies REGULATED by the natural law of reciprocity (international law), instead involuntary transfers between groups producing UNIVERSAL DYSGENIC REPRODUCTION. Economics if anything consists of the full accounting of costs. NOT THE CHERRY PICKING OF RETURNS INDEPENDENT OF COSTS. I don’t make mistakes such as these. The reason is that I don’t engage in cherry-picking (Pseudoscience) Justificationism (sophism) and Postmodern (denial and deceit) “empty verbalism” for the purpose of producing frames that perpetuate the frauds of involuntary transfer, and the spread of dysgenia. Simple facts: those groups that practiced eugenic reproduction under manorialism (east and west) succeeded precisely because of those eugenics, and those that did not, and still do not, are those that struggle. And those that were sold the false promise of universalism whether in the ancient world (the Abrahamic Dark Age and the destruction of all great civilizations of the ancient world), and in the Modern world (marxist-libertarian-postmodern-feminist destruction of the modern world) but lacked the reserve capital (europe, east asia), were sufficiently distracted by the false promise of pseudoscientific sophism, that they have missed the window for using the industrial and technological revolution to organize their societies for eugenic middle class reproduction. Reductive Explanation: The HERD (Universalist) doesn’t know it’s a HERD, but the PACK (Nationalist) knows it’s a pack, and the herd a herd. Selective use of economics to justify an instinct is just pseudoscience. Either you engage in full accounting or you don’t.  

  • The Current Dysgenia

    October 10th, 2018 8:26 AM THE CURRENT DYSGENIA

    1. Colonialism was a profound if not most profound good since the invention of farming – we dragged mankind out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, disease, hard labor, child mortality, early death, suffering, tyranny, and subjectivity to the vicissitudes of nature. Our failure was only in having the european civil wars and leaving our project incomplete.
    2. Slavery was universal and whites were more frequently the subject of it (by muslims) than perpetrators of it. Whites are not malaria-immune but many blacks are. Whites have higher (hotter) metabolisms, and blacks don’t. Whites had to be taken from the criminal class. Africans were captured by other africans as prisoners of war in order to attempt to unify west african empires (which would have happened).

    This meant that the warm weather colonies most able to produce high value goods (particularly sugar) with Africans, and therefore (a) had more survivors, (b) spread the genes of previously constrained peoples to new territories, (c) forcibly modernized both cultures, civilizations and Genes. And it was not ‘known’ that enslaved primitives were capable of civilized behavior at the time. It was only in the 19th century after the industrial revolution that we found that citizens were more profitable than serfs, were more profitable than slaves.

    1. Creating middle classes by resource exploitation, and selling manufactured (value added) goods to developing peoples was the only means possible of dragging the vast body of dirty, ignorant, superstitious, violent, poor, disease ridden, un-domesticated human animals out of of their condition, and reforming their societies incrementally until they themselves could create a middle class civilization capable of self governance without threat to more advanced civilizations.

    I don’t ignore anything. I don’t make mistakes. It’s my job to expose and educate the ignorant, unable, sophomoric, and willingly deceptive. 😉 lol

    1. We treat people as they deserve to be treated, and forcibly domesticate them as we have forcibly domesticated them for 3500 years.
    2. Humans are just another mammal whos dominance hierarchy can be taken over, reproduction controlled through criminal punishment, reproductive suppression, and taxation, leaving only those capable of middle class participation existing.

    This is why the west is rich and the rest of the world is poor: domestication of man.

    1. Meaning, that we have, as have east asians, practiced organized eugenics (self domestication) for thousands of years. A process that was Reversed unfortunately by the industrial revolution, which has led to the current dysgenia.
  • Carry your own genetic water.

    October 10th, 2018 12:28 PM [I]’m not anti-anyone (genetically). If we all practice nationalism then we do not prey upon one another by exporting costs of domestication upon one another, and then can ameliorate our differences through trade, trade policy, and international (natural) law, while producing those commons most suitable to our peoples. I am however against violations of natural law both in display, word, and deed, including those traditions we all rely upon, the group strategies in those traditions, and the means of argument used in perpetuating those strategies. So do I think the people whose strategies are HERD strategies, (Semitic Monotheists, Women, and Gypsies) going to stop following their instincts and traditions? Um no I don’t. Do I think we can fight with our very lives to restore natural law so that we ameliorate those differences through separatism, nations, trade, and law? Yes I do. And I am right, and it is impossible to make a moral argument counter to it, without violating the very law that prevents us from conquering, enserving, enslaving, or worse. So the choice is simple – we either separate and cooperate or we remain artificially unified for the purposes of conquest by the herd, and fight out a bloody civil war. Carry your own genetic water.

  • Chinese vs Indian IQ Distributions

    October 10th, 2018 11:39 AM

    —“One only has to talk with illiterate Chinese and Indians and compare to understand how different their IQs are. You cannot train Indians to do basic manufacturing. Anyone who thinks that India can ever be anything like China is dreaming. “— Jayant Bhandari

    (Again, as a social order, I don’t really have ANY criticisms of india at all, on any grounds. As an economic order I just have a hard time seeing how any window hasn’t passed.)

  • The Complex Problem of India

    October 10th, 2018 10:35 AM GOOD READ ON UNDERSTANDING THE COMPLEX PROBLEM OF INDIA http://akarlin.com/2012/08/the-puzzle-of-indian-iq-a-country-of-gypsies-and-jews/ REDUCTION: genetic drag is inalterable.