Brexit

[jaguar43]

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.

When did Ray Peat say that Mexico has superior nutrition ? Do you have a source for that.

Have you been to West Virginia or Mississippi. Some parts of the U.S are worse than third world countries. They don't have running water or plumbing. They are mostly caucasian.

The living standards have only increase in countries like China, Brazil, India and South Africa. The GDP of these countries have been growing rapidly. The economies of the U.S and Europe are shrinking dramatically. I thin you are ill informed if you think Predominantly white countries still have the upper hand in economic development.

 

[Kyle M]

One of the interviews on KMUD or something similar Peat talked about Mexican diet being good, as well as other times that he mentions living there. Have you ever been to any of those countries? Maybe you should read some of Jayant Bhandari's writings on those parts of the world, he travels around investigating investments opportunities and has a lot to say about rationality, economic development and the misconception that many people have about so-called developing nations. He does make an exception for China, which again is one of the racial groups known to have high average IQ, similar to Japan. Brazil, India and South Africa (to the extent that the Zulu population runs it) are not going to overtake the Western world any time soon, if ever. Only someone completely ignorant of the conditions on the ground there, getting their information from American TV, could believe that.

 

[jaguar43]

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?

Ok, so we will change the definition genetic determinism to suite your argument. (sarcasm)

At the end of the day, the idea that their are differences in intelligences of races is Genetic Determinism. You don't want to admitted it because you how Ray Peat thinks of it. So you change definitions and meanings to suite your argument.

There are some good quotes from Ray Peat that I will post.

Social support, including education, is considered to be the factor which causes great differences in creativity and intelligence, and not genetics. A genetic theory of intelligence is considered to be a mere rationalization for racist practices. - Mind and Tissue page 52

Geneticists have been the worst offenders. Genetics is popular among bourgeois racists and elitists, and many geneticists have eagerly formulated genetic theories of intelligence on the flimsiest evidence. - Mind and Tissue page 161

Modern Scientist doesn't talk about intelligence and race because there is no evidence. Just like Ray Peat has said in his last quote the theories are used on the flimsiest evidence. He called those people who believe in the genetic theory of intelligence racist and elitist. You are a racist. Period.

 

[jaguar43]

One of the interviews on KMUD or something similar Peat talked about Mexican diet being good, as well as other times that he mentions living there. Have you ever been to any of those countries? Maybe you should read some of Jayant Bhandari's writings on those parts of the world, he travels around investigating investments opportunities and has a lot to say about rationality, economic development and the misconception that many people have about so-called developing nations. He does make an exception for China, which again is one of the racial groups known to have high average IQ, similar to Japan. Brazil, India and South Africa (to the extent that the Zulu population runs it) are not going to overtake the Western world any time soon, if ever. Only someone completely ignorant of the conditions on the ground there, getting their information from American TV, could believe that.

He never said that those people in Mexico had a superior nutrition though. Again, you are changing evidence to suite your needs. In his book nutrition for women he has said that he saw a Mexican women feeding her baby pepsi and a white bread roll.

I remember seeing in Mexico a horribly poor women ( i.e probable daily economic less than 20 cents) women feeding her baby Pepsi-Cola and a piece of white bread roll - Ray Peat Nutrition for women page 102.

So the fact is even though he may endorse some specifics food from Mexico. That doesn't mean he doesn't think they don't live in poverty or have health issues from economic disadvantages.

China doesn't have a high economic develop because it has a high average IQ. It has a high economic development because of it's economic policy. China population has serious health problems. Ray Peat wrote in his an article of the problem of cretins in China.

Recently an advocate of soybeans said "if they inhibit the thyroid, why isn't there an epidemic of hypothyroidism in Asia?" I happened to hear this right after seeing newspaper articles about China's problem with 100,000,000 cretins; yes, Asia has endemic hypothyroidism, and beans are widely associated with hypothyroidism.

Estriol, DES, DDT.

Food contamination, lead poisoning are huge problem. The idea that their I.Q is responsible for their economic development is nonsense. The fact is that I.Q isn't even a good indicator of intelligence. But Social opportunity.

His work contradicted the stereotype of bright people as being sickly or frail, but, contrary to his expectation, there was an association between maladjustment and higher I.Q.; the incidence of neurotic fatigue, anxiety, and depression increased along with the I.Q. The least bright of his group were more successful in many ways than the most bright. He didn't really confront the implications of this, though it seriously challenged his belief in a simple genetic racial superiority of physique, intellect, and character.

I.Q. testing originated in a historical setting in which its purpose was often to establish a claim of racial superiority, or to justify sterilization or “euthanasia,” or to exclude immigrants. More recently, the tests have been used to assign students to certain career paths. Because of their use by people in power to control others, the I.Q. tests have helped to create misunderstanding of the nature of intelligence. A person's “I.Q.” now has very strong associations with the ideology of schooling as a road to financial success, rather than to enrichment of a shared mental life.

Intelligence and metabolism

 

[tobieagle]

One of Ray's main ideas is that your genetics or your heritage don't determine you as an individual completely, that you can alter your development to a certain degree by changing the environment.
That's his point.

What do people make of it?:
Environment is everything and time plays no role in it!

Maybe the problem is that we are talking about humans.
Let's take an obvious example from other animals.

Every passionate dog breeder will tell you that there are profound differences between the dog races in terms of character, intelligence which are to a certain degree independant from their upbringing.
Of course if you subject lets say siberian huskies and german shepards to the same conditions and stop selected breeding, they will become less and less distinctive and their characteristics become alike.
But that does not happen in 1 generation.

If calling out the apparent evidence that there are races with distinct characteristics which took hundreds of generations to cultivate, makes one a racist nowadays, then you have changed the definition of the word.
I don't care about someones feelings when it comes to intellectual honesty.

 

[Hugh Johnson]

Reminder that according to Juncker, aliens are not happy about Brexit:

Juncker verwirrt: EU-Kommissionschef faselt im Parlament von Außerirdischen - Video

Not going partake in a stupid **** race talk. However, I think there is an actual conflict going here.

Cultured Hicks

 

[Drareg]

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.

You will need to define full literacy here, it's not that black and white. It's a ridiculous claim to make.

the British claimed to have had full literacy which is propaganda IMO from an empire where propaganda was rampant trying to convince the world the empire was great.

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?

You need to read the thread, the twin studies were addressed, another in denial of epigenetics and the flawed twin studies.
I'm not sure the point of your anecdote in relation to black children??
can you point to the study of more single black mothers than white?

 

[Kyle M]

Just one of many, this is one trying to disprove it. None

 

[Drareg]

One of Ray's main ideas is that your genetics or your heritage don't determine you as an individual completely, that you can alter your development to a certain degree by changing the environment.
That's his point.

What do people make of it?:
Environment is everything and time plays no role in it!

Maybe the problem is that we are talking about humans.
Let's take an obvious example from other animals.

Every passionate dog breeder will tell you that there are profound differences between the dog races in terms of character, intelligence which are to a certain degree independant from their upbringing.
Of course if you subject lets say siberian huskies and german shepards to the same conditions and stop selected breeding, they will become less and less distinctive and their characteristics become alike.
But that does not happen in 1 generation.

If calling out the apparent evidence that there are races with distinct characteristics which took hundreds of generations to cultivate, makes one a racist nowadays, then you have changed the definition of the word.
I don't care about someones feelings when it comes to intellectual honesty.

Your creating a straw man here by bringing time into it, it's more motion but the same concept. You claim nobody acknowledges this?

This is anecdotal for dogs, define dog intelligence?
The passionate dog breeder is just that passionate and projecting on to dogs.

Dog character different? They bark, they like walks, they like play and food. Profound differences? Clearly not profound.

You then contradict yourself with your husky and German Shepard example, try be honest to yourself before you try it with others, there is little intellect in your example here, Im not sure how you see yourself as intellectually honest.

 

[Drareg]

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.

Its You in the place of insecurity, you seem to lack the ability to put together coherent examples and are hiding behind a flawed study.

Re-read the thread for examples.

 

[Drareg]

Just one of many, this is one trying to disprove it. None

This says born out of wedlock not single mothers, your point was single mothers, it wasn't even a point.

Black people in America are still treated poorly, studies like this reflect it.
If you do more than right pop culture sciences styled studies you would see that birth rates amongst black women has declined, married black women are also having less kids.
Those studies show it.

People with hidden agendas like genetic superiority pathologies always clutch at studies like this

How does any of this argue for intelligence?

 

[Kyle M]

Did you forget that you asked me for a reference about that? I made the point that most of the bad behavior with black youth is probably related to their family unit crisis. I wonder how much time you have spent in the inner city ghettos and looked around at the behavior on display there, and the lack of fathers. Of course that is not an argument for intelligence, as it was a direct response to your request.
I'm pretty comfortable with what I've said here, not insecure at all. I would take the Pepsi challenge of any third party looking at our posts and comparing mine with your hysterics and name calling.

 

[Drareg]

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.

Strawman. Your not criticising Peat here, your making your own argument and refuting it, your doing this with many of your posts , your hiding behind your definition of heritability claiming to have evidence, put it together if you do and post. Your posting strawmans all over the place with your heritability angle.

At no point has Peat specifically claimed nutrition is the answer, nutrition is part of the broader environment, pregnenolone and thyroid won't do a whole lot if Europeans are invading a relatively peaceful land and slaughtering the natives.

It's adds up because of cultural issues in Mexico,for example gangland crime,mafias mostly in the name of drugs for the western worlds Wall Street types,big politics cocaine fuelled reasoning and global castrophy making systems, and don't forget average joe who needs class A drugs to numb the pain of this great existence you champion ,perhaps it's his tortired genius can't handle existence from the inherited higher intelligence and perception he was burdened with from birth .

Some of the technology you speak of was invented by individuals from all parts of the world,not just of European and Asian decent, what don't you see here?
You seem to think Eastern Asia have great individual rights,many countries there clearly do not.

What technology do we have in first world countries that the Mexicans lack right now?

The 2 ideas do live together because they are facts.

What makes your posts more redundant as with the other posters is your faith and dogmatic believe and love in IQ tests as defining intelligence.
Can you clarify how IQ defines intelligence with complete accuracy?

 

[Drareg]

Did you forget that you asked me for a reference about that? I made the point that most of the bad behavior with black youth is probably related to their family unit crisis. I wonder how much time you have spent in the inner city ghettos and looked around at the behavior on display there, and the lack of fathers. Of course that is not an argument for intelligence, as it was a direct response to your request.
I'm pretty comfortable with what I've said here, not insecure at all. I would take the Pepsi challenge of any third party looking at our posts and comparing mine with your hysterics and name calling.

Hysterics and name calling yet you use butt hurt several times directed at forum member.

By walking around a ghetto you could tell that their were no fathers and define the situation with a quick stroll, genius.
Another assumption you make just like the single mothers, my point was your bringing the point was pointless. Your doing this a lot.

 

[kyle]

The far left and the far right were fundamentally the same people, just superficially different

I think the complete opposite is true. They're superficially similar, fundamentally different. Jonathan Haidt's theory of the axis of morality, people who are right-wing are much more broad in their moral considerations, with leftists centering around a smaller spectrum of morality. Leftist morality is derivative.

He called those people who believe in the genetic theory of intelligence racist and elitist. You are a racist. Period.

Supposing anyone here advocated a purely genetic theory of intelligence (they haven't), this is completely illogical determination.

The National Socialists were the first modern nation to establish large scale environmental laws. Does that make environmentalists Nazis? This is the same line of logic you are using.

Let's take an obvious example from other animals.

When animal husbandry was a primary human activity, these sorts of debates simply wouldn't take place because it would just seem absurd on the fact of it. Just goes to show how much more intelligent a life working closer to the natural world makes a person. Obsessing over semantics and ideological purity tests are to me, not very intelligent activities. An ideological purity test is this need to police others into what they think every "good citizen" must abide by. There is something inherently mind-numbing about it.

Fewer people work with animals today but each year we have big horse races. Ask a horse breeder what they thought of inheritance and they would laugh their head off. No, you don't feed the diet of a race horse to a pony and expect it to win that Kentucky derby. The right breeding animals are worth millions because of just how competitive it is.

But more than that, BOTH environmental AND genetic determinism have more in common than you might think and equally myopic. E.g.:

Dog character different? They bark, they like walks, they like play and food. Profound differences? Clearly not profound.

WRT Peat's views on intelligence, he rightfully skewered the type of intelligence being selected for by IQ tests. Because it is an inherently narrow, conformist and rigid form. It was more of an critique of our political and economic institutions. It wasn't Peat denying that things like intelligence exist. In fact, he often talks about intelligence, it was WRT IQ testing AND how it related to institutional rigidity.

Ya'll are re-purposing Peat's statements to put people into some kind of Kafka-trap. I'd be curious the mechanisms of what drives people to try to herd people into conforming. I suppose it's just an inherently human thing to get other people to conform. I don't know.

But just to point out something funny-

You viciously deny IQs very existence while demanding that we believe anyone is capable of said form of intelligence if they have the correct environmental factors.

Which is it? Does it exist or not? Is it important or not? By defending the non-existence of intelligence differences you are inadvertently INSISTING on its ultimate importance. You are defending the same exact thing as a genetic determinist, are you not? If IQ is not important, then why do you care if different sequences of genetic alleles, or clusters of bloodlines are associated with different levels of IQ?

The funny thing is, I already stated that IQ is of a minor importance in just about every single one of my political concerns. I merely noted the disintegrating and disenfranchising nature of immigration and large scale institutions pushing around European ethnics. I also wanted to correct the record WRT genes and intelligence: there is a relationship between genes and IQ, nothing more, nothing less. How the debate spilled out in this fashion shows that this isn't about matters of facts but trying to maintain some kind of ideological purity.

For purposes of being human, this idea of being entirely governed by either the environment or genes is a quick way to the madhouse. This becomes a question of free will. The implications of being controlled by the genes or the environment in your abilities is a sure way to see your abilities waste away as you obsess over how you are unfairly limited by who you are/where you are. This is the perverse nature of American race politics. You can either overcome your relative weaknesses compared to others through pursuing the infinite possibilities still on offer to you, or let your hatred of what nature gave you/provides leaving you in a state of helplessness.

Both are toxic ideas and in the minds of someone lacking any form of scientific training or just common sense can stunt their own potential. Unfortunately it is incredibly pervasive in our culture which instead of valuing hardwork and humility wants to tear down and lash out what they see as an injustice.

 

[snowboard111]

Kyle, I would love to give you a lifetime supply of orange juice

 

[Drareg]

I think the complete opposite is true. They're superficially similar, fundamentally different. Jonathan Haidt's theory of the axis of morality, people who are right-wing are much more broad in their moral considerations, with leftists centering around a smaller spectrum of morality. Leftist morality is derivative.



Supposing anyone here advocated a purely genetic theory of intelligence (they haven't), this is completely illogical determination.

The National Socialists were the first modern nation to establish large scale environmental laws. Does that make environmentalists Nazis? This is the same line of logic you are using.



When animal husbandry was a primary human activity, these sorts of debates simply wouldn't take place because it would just seem absurd on the fact of it. Just goes to show how much more intelligent a life working closer to the natural world makes a person. Obsessing over semantics and ideological purity tests are to me, not very intelligent activities. An ideological purity test is this need to police others into what they think every "good citizen" must abide by. There is something inherently mind-numbing about it.

Fewer people work with animals today but each year we have big horse races. Ask a horse breeder what they thought of inheritance and they would laugh their head off. No, you don't feed the diet of a race horse to a pony and expect it to win that Kentucky derby. The right breeding animals are worth millions because of just how competitive it is.

But more than that, BOTH environmental AND genetic determinism have more in common than you might think and equally myopic. E.g.:



WRT Peat's views on intelligence, he rightfully skewered the type of intelligence being selected for by IQ tests. Because it is an inherently narrow, conformist and rigid form. It was more of an critique of our political and economic institutions. It wasn't Peat denying that things like intelligence exist. In fact, he often talks about intelligence, it was WRT IQ testing AND how it related to institutional rigidity.

Ya'll are re-purposing Peat's statements to put people into some kind of Kafka-trap. I'd be curious the mechanisms of what drives people to try to herd people into conforming. I suppose it's just an inherently human thing to get other people to conform. I don't know.

But just to point out something funny-

You viciously deny IQs very existence while demanding that we believe anyone is capable of said form of intelligence if they have the correct environmental factors.

Which is it? Does it exist or not? Is it important or not? By defending the non-existence of intelligence differences you are inadvertently INSISTING on its ultimate importance. You are defending the same exact thing as a genetic determinist, are you not? If IQ is not important, then why do you care if different sequences of genetic alleles, or clusters of bloodlines are associated with different levels of IQ?

The funny thing is, I already stated that IQ is of a minor importance in just about every single one of my political concerns. I merely noted the disintegrating and disenfranchising nature of immigration and large scale institutions pushing around European ethnics. I also wanted to correct the record WRT genes and intelligence: there is a relationship between genes and IQ, nothing more, nothing less. How the debate spilled out in this fashion shows that this isn't about matters of facts but trying to maintain some kind of ideological purity.

For purposes of being human, this idea of being entirely governed by either the environment or genes is a quick way to the madhouse. This becomes a question of free will. The implications of being controlled by the genes or the environment in your abilities is a sure way to see your abilities waste away as you obsess over how you are unfairly limited by who you are/where you are. This is the perverse nature of American race politics. You can either overcome your relative weaknesses compared to others through pursuing the infinite possibilities still on offer to you, or let your hatred of what nature gave you/provides leaving you in a state of helplessness.

Both are toxic ideas and in the minds of someone lacking any form of scientific training or just common sense can stunt their own potential. Unfortunately it is incredibly pervasive in our culture which instead of valuing hardwork and humility wants to tear down and lash out what they see as an injustice.

I asked how was IQ the definitive test for intelligence, I don't deny it. Where did you even get vicious from?
You've created a strawman here and continue along with giving yourself the illusion of the high road and superiority.
At what point and please quote do any of us deny intelligence and that Peat Denys intelligence exists? Definitions were asked for at times as questions to others who don't respond.

If you can't be bothered to read my posts and respond in general with point for point ,it's redundant to go make the assumptions your making, they are not grounded in facts but more your feelings.

To summarise as you mention,IQ test are not the one stop shop for intelligence therefore how do the studies on heritability stand up.
We haven't even many studies nor a coherent argument behind this theory, most people are not reading others posts fully.

You started your response to me with "the funny thing is" , this is passive aggressive condescension yet you accuse others of slurs, you did similar in earlier posts.

 

[Drareg]

Kyle, I would love to give you a lifetime supply of orange juice

You may as well give it to him as he comments and gets involved,cheerleading in the stands doesn't use much energy , all for fear of making a mistake.

 

[Kyle M]

Drareg, if I sent you a book recommendation on economics or history would you read it? From browsing this thread I see you have some incorrect notions about the market and monopoly, probably from the government run education system that aggrandizes itself.

 

[snowboard111]

LOL :) I should give it to you for such passion in this debate

I've ask the question many time and nobody except for Kyle give his oppinions about it...

What's intelligence?
What's IQ?
What's so important about it? (in all context but also in regard to Brexit)