Brexit

[Drareg]

"This is what I'm talking about. Anti-white racism. Every race can fight for their own race except whites, because that's racist".

"You cannot tell someone what their values are. I know what I'm about. You assume that I don't care about non-whites. I say "Whites are at risk. Whites are becoming minorities in our own countries," and your response is "You can't care about that."

It's pure anti-white racism".

"So much anti-white racism in this thread. Years of whites people not defending themselves have pushed the moral narrative to the point where it's wrong for whites to have a racial identity. To the point where it's wrong to acknowledge that cultural "enrichment" means great risk for our people".

"I'm not talking about economic issues; I don't know how you got that idea. I care about my people, our culture, our future. I care that we're on track to become minorities in our own countries. I don't like debating but I'm going to keep speaking out for whites"

It's not about skin color. That's an intentional strawman.

"Pathological attachment"... If you have to take digs at somebody it goes to show that you're not above it.

If it's not about skin colour for you, you should clarify your above statements.
If its not about skin for you why use the term whites,anti-White racism etc.

 

[Sheik]

Get real.

 

[Kyle M]

What country achieved full literacy before England? AFAIK they were the first, in the 1800s, to achieve essentially full literacy, via being taught to read the Bible. Source - The Economics of Scientific Research by Terrence Kealey, a book I recommend for anyone trying to understand the politics of science funding.

 

[jaguar43]

I thought we settled this last time? Ray's argument that twin studies are invalid because of shared womb environment or that environment makes genetics matter very little is completely dismantled by the Wilson Effect. Which is...twins reared apart, living in different environments, become more similar as they get older. Let me repeat, twins living in different environments are LEAST similar when they come out of the womb as newborns.


The Wilson Effect: the increase in heritability of IQ with age. - PubMed - NCBI

Your sources are completely bias. The author of that study was one of the scientist who the signed the Mainstream Science on Intelligence in 1994. The drafter of that document was Linda Gottfredson who receives money from the pioneer fund, a eugenics organization. Here is statement 20 of the document in which the very same author of the study you posted signed off on.

20: "Racial-ethnic differences in IQ bell curves are essentially the same when youngsters leave high school as when they enter first grade ... black 17-year-olds perform, on the average, more like white 13-year-olds"

Mainstream Science on Intelligence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




By the way, Is that women in your profile pic wearing a nazi uniform ?

 

[Kyle M]

20: "Racial-ethnic differences in IQ bell curves are essentially the same when youngsters leave high school as when they enter first grade ... black 17-year-olds perform, on the average, more like white 13-year-olds"

All sources are biased. The current academic bias is to believe that there are NOT racial/ethnic differences in intelligence, rather than that there are. Not unlike climate change. Is it so hard to believe that intelligence (brain size, glucose usage etc.) behaves similarly to heat, skin color, body size etc?

 

[jaguar43]

All sources are biased. The current academic bias is to believe that there are NOT racial/ethnic differences in intelligence, rather than that there are. Not unlike climate change. Is it so hard to believe that intelligence (brain size, glucose usage etc.) behaves similarly to heat, skin color, body size etc?

So your saying that brain size and glucose usage behaves similar to skin color ?

The question is do you agree with that statement. That 17 year old black teens behave similarly to 13 year white children ? I think trying to defend that doesn't make you unbiased or anti-mainstream. Because the evidence is overwhelming against it.

 

[Kyle M]

So your saying that brain size and glucose usage behaves similar to skin color ?

Yes, in the sense that there is a hereditary element to both of them. Skin color, or ear lobe attachment status, is mostly passed down from parents to children. The relative size of some of your fingers and toes, the texture of your hair, the breadth of your shoulders and it's relative to your height or the length of your legs, those all have hereditary elements. If nutrition is inadequate a children can be shorter than they otherwise would be, but a black child won't suddenly become white, and an African pigmy won't be as tall as a Maasai even if the pygmy has great nutrition and the Maasai poor.

The question is do you agree with that statement. That 17 year old black teens behave similarly to 13 year white children ? I think trying to defend that doesn't make you unbiased or anti-mainstream. Because the evidence is overwhelming against it.

What evidence? You took a statement and didn't give me the evidence behind it. I have seen plenty of 17 year olds that acted worse than 13 year olds, and as a matter of fact the worst behavior I have seen personally in my life was from black children. I believe that is mostly due to the extremely high rate of single mother's raising children in the black community. But I have seen some of Helmuth Nyborg's work and he makes a pretty good case that at least some brain physiology is heritable. This includes twin studies, whole population epidemiology, brain scans of glucose uptake and other things I haven't looked into as much. The twin studies are in particular compelling from an inheritance stand point. You say "the evidence is overwhelmingly against it." What does that mean? What evidence? Do you have a study of black 17 year olds vs. white 13 year olds that you're sitting on over there?

 

[snowboard111]

:)

 

[jaguar43]

What evidence? You took a statement and didn't give me the evidence behind it. I have seen plenty of 17 year olds that acted worse than 13 year olds, and as a matter of fact the worst behavior I have seen personally in my life was from black children. I believe that is mostly due to the extremely high rate of single mother's raising children in the black community. But I have seen some of Helmuth Nyborg's work and he makes a pretty good case that at least some brain physiology is heritable. This includes twin studies, whole population epidemiology, brain scans of glucose uptake and other things I haven't looked into as much. The twin studies are in particular compelling from an inheritance stand point. You say "the evidence is overwhelmingly against it." What does that mean? What evidence? Do you have a study of black 17 year olds vs. white 13 year olds that you're sitting on over there?

First of all you are making the accusations that intelligence is genetically determined. The burden of proof is upon you ! Because most scientist ( including Ray Peat ) don't believe it.

Here are quotes from Ray Peat.

The argument for a “genetic” cause of schizophrenia relies heavily on twin studies in which the frequency of both twins being schizophrenic is contrasted to the normal incidence of schizophrenia in the population, which is usually about 1%. There is a concordance of 30% to 40% between monozygotic (identical) twins, and a 5% to 10% concordance between fraternal twins, and both of these rates are higher than that of other siblings in the same family. That argument neglects the closer similarity of the intrauterine conditions experienced by twins, for example the sharing of the same placenta, and experiencing more concordant biochemical interactions between fetus and mother.

Defects of the brain, head, face, and even hands and fingerprints are seen more frequently in the genetically identical twin who later develops schizophrenia than the twin who doesn’t develop schizophrenia. Of the twins, it is the baby with the lower birth weight and head size that is at a greater risk of developing schizophrenia.

Oliver Gillie (in his book, Who Do You Think You Are?) discussed some of the fraud that has occurred in twin studies, but no additional fraud is needed when the non-genetic explanation is simply ignored and excluded from discussion. The editors of most medical and scientific journals are so convinced of the reality of genetic determination that they won’t allow their readers to see criticisms of it.

Prenatal malnutriton or hormonal stress or other stresses are known to damage the brain, and especially its most highly evolved and metabolically active frontal lobes, and to reduce its growth, relative to the rest of the body.

Thyroid, insomnia, and the insanities: Commonalities in disease

Racist geneticists to the contrary, there is no evidence that either intelligence or brain size is genetically inherited, since acquired changes are heritable, and since only one protein peculiar to the brain is known, at present. Other brain-specific proteins will probably be discovered, but despite a large effort in that direction, there is no hint of a molecular-genetic basis for "inherited intelligence." Glucose, hormones, stimulation and other factors significantly modify brain size and function. - Ray Peat mind and tissue page 88

You referenced Helmuth Nyborg, the same guy who gave estrogen pills to girls with turner syndrome. Thats almost laughable. He was also editor of Richards Lynn's book. The guy who is a white supremacist trying to push for a eugenics policy. The scientist referenced by genetic determinist on this forum is unbelievable. If you guys don't cite a scientist who is a straight up racist, then you cite someone who is friends with, or associated with one.

 

[Kyle M]

I'm really surprised by how much people hate the idea of intelligence being heritable, just like everything else. Seems to me it's from a place of insecurity. I'm white, and if there was evidence that East Asians had higher average intelligence than whites, know what I would say? Ok. What does it matter, if it's true it doesn't matter whether I'm butt hurt about it or not. And it also doesn't mean any particular individual is more or less smart than any other individual.

 

[jaguar43]

I'm really surprised by how much people hate the idea of intelligence being heritable, just like everything else. Seems to me it's from a place of insecurity. I'm white, and if there was evidence that East Asians had higher average intelligence than whites, know what I would say? Ok. What does it matter, if it's true it doesn't matter whether I'm butt hurt about it or not. And it also doesn't mean any particular individual is more or less smart than any other individual.

Because this the Ray Peat Forum. If don't know Ray Peat's stance on that specific issue, then I don't know what to say. You should inform yourself.

 

[Kyle M]

First of all you are making the accusations that intelligence is genetically determined. The burden of proof is upon you ! Because most scientist ( including Ray Peat ) don't believe it.

You referenced Helmuth Nyborg, the same guy who gave estrogen pills to girls with turner syndrome. Thats almost laughable. He was also editor of Richards Lynn's book. The guy who is a white supremacist trying to push for a eugenics policy. The scientist referenced by genetic determinist on this forum is unbelievable. If you guys don't cite a scientist who is a straight up racist, then you cite someone who is friends or associated with one.

That's not how burden of proof works. First of all, I never said intelligence is genetically determined. I never used the word genetic, or determine. I said, and repeat, that intelligence has a hereditary component, just like all other organismal characteristics. If you wish to address my statements, address that.
Second, back to burden of proof, our statements are symmetric, they are both attempting to explain something from the same point of ignorance. If I said I had the answer, and you said you were agnostic, then I would have the burden. You, however, claim to have the answer yourself, that it is environmental and not at all genetic (or as I say hereditary). Therefore we have equal burdens of truth.

As far as the "white supremacists" and "eugenicists" that you talk about, the modern left calls everyone who is not for giving unlimited, involuntary welfare to immigrants as a white supremacist and racist, so I can't take those claims seriously. Racist is a term used (99% of the time) by people with no argument who want to smear someone. I have listened to and read Nyborg's words and he never said anything racist, he is simply stating the facts as he sees them. Obviously I disagree with his VERY early work with estrogen and Turner's, but honestly I don't know much about it. Maybe in that one situation estrogen would be therapeutic, but my Ray Peat leanings tell me no. His OTHER work (which should not be tarnished by previous work, if you are an unbiased truth seeker) does not seem to have any serious problems to me. He has been hounded out of awards and jobs in Denmark for his opinions, and from what I understand about the current political climate in Western Europe vis a vis race, immigration and facts, I must admit that anyone falling afoul of the authorities and elites there scores points with me.

 

[Kyle M]

Because this the Ray Peat Forum. If don't know Ray Peat's stance on that specific issue, then I don't know what to say. You should inform yourself.

Am I to understand that you're saying, because this is the Ray Peat forum, that someone expression an idea contrary to one of Ray's must therefore elicit a butt hurt response, regardless of it's merit?
I do know what Ray has said about genetics and intelligence. You will notice I say heredity and not genetics, because I believe there is more to inheritance than DNA. I also believe that Ray is responding to the old school of early genetics people that claims all traits are 100% genetic in nature, with environment making no difference as long as the organism survives to adulthood to express it's DNA. He was not responding to my argument, or Dr. Nyborg's, or a bunch of others who have decent evidence that heredity plays a part in intelligence (again, just like it does in every other trait).
Perhaps I should self-flagellate for having an opinion in opposition to Ray Peat?

 

[jaguar43]

That's not how burden of proof works. First of all, I never said intelligence is genetically determined. I never used the word genetic, or determine. I said, and repeat, that intelligence has a hereditary component, just like all other organismal characteristics. If you wish to address my statements, address that.
Second, back to burden of proof, our statements are symmetric, they are both attempting to explain something from the same point of ignorance. If I said I had the answer, and you said you were agnostic, then I would have the burden. You, however, claim to have the answer yourself, that it is environmental and not at all genetic (or as I say hereditary). Therefore we have equal burdens of truth.

As far as the "white supremacists" and "eugenicists" that you talk about, the modern left calls everyone who is not for giving unlimited, involuntary welfare to immigrants as a white supremacist and racist, so I can't take those claims seriously. Racist is a term used (99% of the time) by people with no argument who want to smear someone. I have listened to and read Nyborg's words and he never said anything racist, he is simply stating the facts as he sees them. Obviously I disagree with his VERY early work with estrogen and Turner's, but honestly I don't know much about it. Maybe in thaone situation estrogen would be therapeutic, but my Ray Peat leanings tell me no. His OTHER work (which should not be tarnished by previous work, if you are an unbiased truth seeker) does not seem to have any serious problems to me. He has been hounded out of awards and jobs in Denmark for his opinions, and from what I understand about the current political climate in Western Europe vis a vis race, immigration and facts, I must admit that anyone falling afoul of the authorities and elites there scores points with me.

You just reference Nyborgs work. Your saying he doesn't believe white are genetically determined to be more intelligent than blacks and immigrants.. On one hand you defend Nyborg who is genetic determinist, then you say that you don't believe it. You are all over the place. Here is a video on him speaking on it.



I have posted studies that prove my point on this thread. Ray Peat has posted hundreds of studies showing the opposite what you say. You are suppose to post studies or evidence proving your point if your point contradicts with ideas in the forum.

 

[jaguar43]

Am I to understand that you're saying, because this is the Ray Peat forum, that someone expression an idea contrary to one of Ray's must therefore elicit a butt hurt response, regardless of it's merit?
I do know what Ray has said about genetics and intelligence. You will notice I say heredity and not genetics, because I believe there is more to inheritance than DNA. I also believe that Ray is responding to the old school of early genetics people that claims all traits are 100% genetic in nature, with environment making no difference as long as the organism survives to adulthood to express it's DNA. He was not responding to my argument, or Dr. Nyborg's, or a bunch of others who have decent evidence that heredity plays a part in intelligence (again, just like it does in every other trait).
Perhaps I should self-flagellate for having an opinion in opposition to Ray Peat?

Am I stopping you from participating on this forum ? Has charlie or any of the other moderators banned you for not agreeing with Ray Peat? The only "butt hurt" as you like to imply, is coming from you. Because you don't have evidence or knowledge to defend your argument.

If someone was promoting the idea that Fish oils are beneficial. Then someone on this forum would debate that specific person. Why is that such a problem ?

Like I said before Nyborg is a genetic determinist. Anyone who believes that a particular race is more intelligent than another race is a genetic determinist. Anyone who believes that inheritance of intelligence is based on "heredity" is also a genetic determinist.

 

[Kyle M]

I don't think you understand what genetic determinism means. It does not mean that genetics are involved in a trait, it means that genetics are the only thing involved in that trait. Nyborg doesn't believe that, even in that interview you linked it is stated that nutrition and breast feeding as well as other things can move the needle a few points in either direction of IQ, but that controlling for those factors certain races have higher average IQs than others.

 

[Kyle M]

Also, to criticize some of what Ray has said on this topic a bit, I would like to put together a few concepts. One of them is the known differences in IQ amongst population, which you are explaining entirely by environment. Ray, I suppose, says the same thing. However, Ray has often also said that places such as Mexico have superior nutrition compared with most Americans. How does that add up? Are we to assume that the reason all predominantly white, Jewish and Eastern Asian nations have more technology, higher standards of living and a more developed individual rights system is because they happened to have all stumbled upon superior nutrition compared to the nations dominated by other races? I know for a fact that Ray has said many parts of the world, such as areas in Mexico, have superior nutrition and lower stress environments compared to America, and yet the results are what they are regarding IQ and living standards.
These 2 ideas cannot exist together.

 

[jaguar43]

I don't think you understand what genetic determinism means. It does not mean that genetics are involved in a trait, it means that genetics are the only thing involved in that trait. Nyborg doesn't believe that, even in that interview you linked it is stated that nutrition and breast feeding as well as other things can move the needle a few points in either direction of IQ, but that controlling for those factors certain races have higher average IQs than others.

Here is the a definition of genetic determinism

Genetic determinism is the mechanism by which genes, along with environmental conditions, determine morphological and behavioral phenotypes.

Genetic determinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So just because you think nutrition and breastfeeding can increase a few points of IQ, that doesn't mean you are not a genetic determinist. In fact, not even genetic determinist scientist think certain races have higher averages of IQ then others. So you and Nyborg are far more along the lines of the traditional ideas of genetic determinism.


The anthesis to this is lamarckian and epigenetic idea of development. Where brain development and intelligence is more aligned with your environment. Enriched environments causes the brains to grow larger.

London taxi drivers were recently found to have an enlargement of part of the hippocampus, compared to the brains of other people, and the difference was greater, in proportion to the time they had been driving taxis. Their brains have been shaped by their activities.

The rat research of Marion Diamond and others at the University of California, however, showed that the structure, weight, and biochemistry of a rat's brain changes, according to the amount of environmental stimulation and opportunity for exploration.

Rats isolated in little boxes, generation after generation--the normal laboratory rats--were the standard, but now it's known that isolation is a stress that alters brain chemistry and function.

Intelligence and metabolism

 

[snowboard111]

Can any of you answer two very important question;

1) What's being intelligent?
2) Which one of you win in a pissing contest?

 

[Kyle M]

That is a silly definition for the term, I don't care if Wikipedia uses it. That definition should be for the term "genetic involvement." That would be like saying the definition of fate is "a slight influence of the Gods on otherwise individually determined futures." Obviously it's more useful to define the book ends, all genetics on one side and all environment on the other, and then discuss where in the middle the truth is. By your logic, there is no phrase or term or someone who thinks, like the early genetic determinists did, that environment plays no part in inheritance besides getting the organism to adulthood.
Modern scientists tend not to talk about intelligence and race because it isn't politically correct and they can lose their jobs. A Nobel prize winner lost his job last year based on a misquote about women in the lab, and I have personally witnessed some injustices in the name of political correctness in the biomedical research world.
Is your position that inheritance plays no part in intelligence?