PUFAs And Their Influence On Political Leanings

[Energizer]

I don't think you can necessarily boil down PUFA intake to political leanings, but I guess I'll take a stab. PUFA consumption lowers metabolism and promotes rigidity and status-quo thinking. This would probably lead to the continuation of existing political structures, regardless of ones political leanings.

As to RP's political views, I would speculate that he's an anarchist (and anti-capitalist), judging by his frequent referencing of anarchistic political figures and him stating that he thinks people would be better off without governors and talking about the success of a Spanish town run by an "anarchist" mayor and the prosperity of pre-literate societies. It's ironic that humans hold ourselves as the pinnacles of achievement when there's anthropological evidence of humans presumably far more intelligent than the average person (ie. Boskop / starchild skulls).

 

[BrianF]

I dont think that Peat's theory on 'moving north' indicates 'white guilt' its merely a theory. In the same way tbeories on other races, why they evolved socially etc, aren't necessarily racist. Most arent at all.

I disagree with Peat. My take on it is that as humans moved North, they encounteted harsher climatic conditions and thus they evolved into hierarchical societies because in doing so it gave an advantage in survival.

He's also wrong about the enslaving. Societies have been taking slaves since the beginning of time. The Ashanti were a massive slave trading society. The Arabbs of the middle east and the Barbary coast also.

 

[managing]

There are groups of people which can clearly be distinguished via a genetic test, these groups also show differences in phenotypic traits.

If you want me to tell you which individual genes do encode for which specific phenotypic traits, I have to pass, but I also didn't claim to know that and it's irrelevant to the claim I made.

Example in animals:
Huskies have a different collective personality compared to Rottweilers and they are genetically distinguishable from them. Which gene does encode the "headstrong" character of the husky? I don't know and it doesn't matter for the claim.

You are mistaking co-variance for causality.

You are also reaching into 50 year old "psychological" hypotheses about personality traits. There is a reason that even psychology--a very questionable "science"--left those behind long ago.

Regardless of whether your motives are naive or evil, you're far, far from credible.

 

[Kartoffel]

Example in animals:
Huskies have a different collective personality compared to Rottweilers and they are genetically distinguishable from them. Which gene does encode the "headstrong" character of the husky? I don't know and it doesn't matter for the claim.

Which gene encodes making retarded comparisons between humans and dog breeds? Are white people the huskies or the rottweilers ? You really seem not to be aware how ridiculous your arguments are. You subscribe to the worst and most outdated form of genetic determinism. I think even most modern geneticists would be embarassed to claim that there is a gene that encodes the headstrong character of huskies. My parents own a husky btw, and he is the lamest, most submissive dog you will ever see. Every retriever is a bullheaded daredevil compared to him.

 

[vulture]

You could consider the correlates between political ideology and personality, and how physiology influences that.

Peat is very clearly high in trait openness. Openness is correlated with left-wing ideology.

Left is usually state worshippers and far from freedom and openness. After living years in a leftist country, where you end up being a state slave, I doubt it's a good idea to avoid authoritarism. I tend to like Libertarian ideas...I really don't like the idea of the state increasingly regulating my behaviour and charging services I didn't asked for.

 

[managing]

Left is usually state worshippers and far from freedom and openness. After living years in a leftist country, where you end up being a state slave, I doubt it's a good idea to avoid authoritarism. I tend to like Libertarian ideas...I really don't like the idea of the state increasingly regulating my behaviour and charging services I didn't asked for.

What country was that? Can you describe some of the ways you ended up being a state slave there?

 

[vulture]

What country was that? Can you describe some of the ways you ended up being a state slave there?

Venezuela. in '58 leftist kicked out Perez Jimenez of the power. They started increasing the state size, ended up with public ownership of main industries (oil and gold), people started getting poorer and poorer, and ended up (resentfully) chosing as a president a Fidel Castro's disciple, Hugo Chávez. He started getting the country further into socialism, they toke productive farms, industries, regulating almost every aspect of human life and we ended up starving and begging the state for food, home, cars and fighting even for a pair of chickens or a 2 pounds of corn flour. If you wanna know more in detail there's a video of a guy which I knew and was pretty smart, they made a political movement, had what the U.S. people would say a "libertarian" project for the country, and people was so socialist and poor that it's almost impossible to gather enought support for such a thing.



I was a resentful commie, gladly, I find some videos of Libertarian teachers and knew some people to discuss these things and I understood that leftism is a real bad idea. I think Unabomber in his manifesto made a really good analysis on the leftist ideology.

 

[managing]

Venezuela. in '58 leftist kicked out Perez Jimenez of the power. They started increasing the state size, ended up with public ownership of main industries (oil and gold), people started getting poorer and poorer, and ended up (resentfully) chosing as a president a Fidel Castro's disciple, Hugo Chávez. He started getting the country further into socialism, they toke productive farms, industries, regulating almost every aspect of human life and we ended up starving and begging the state for food, home, cars and fighting even for a pair of chickens or a 2 pounds of corn flour. If you wanna know more in detail there's a video of a guy which I knew and was pretty smart, they made a political movement, had what the U.S. people would say a "libertarian" project for the country, and people was so socialist and poor that it's almost impossible to gather enought support for such a thing.



I was a resentful commie, gladly, I find some videos of Libertarian teachers and knew some people to discuss these things and I understood that leftism is a real bad idea. I think Unabomber in his manifesto made a really good analysis on the leftist ideology.

Yes, Venezuela is a mess, and has been for a very long time.

You seem to imply that all "left", whatever exactly that means, is the same as this. Did you mean to do that?

How do you disentangle the effects of communism from authoritarianism? I would agree that communism seems to invoke authoritarianism mightily. But it is clearly not limited to communist governments.

 

[Kartoffel]

I understood that leftism is a real bad idea.

Living in a leftist shithole like Germany, I can certainly confirm that this is true. I visited Norway (where they nationalized oil) and Denmark last year, and can tell you that people suffer even more in those places. I wish we had a right-wing government like Poland or Hungary where people are completely free and happy.

 

[vulture]

Yes, Venezuela is a mess, and has been for a very long time.

You seem to imply that all "left", whatever exactly that means, is the same as this. Did you mean to do that?

How do you disentangle the effects of communism from authoritarianism? I would agree that communism seems to invoke authoritarianism mightily. But it is clearly not limited to communist governments.

Not limited to commies, but commies almost always end up in authtoritarism.
Leftists tend to agree that there's a greater good that must be done upon restricting individual freedom, usually they see the state as a problem, but they tend to believe they need to put "their people" on the state in order to use the state to reach some egalitarian utopia that always end up on a bunch of extremely authoritary guys restricting freedoms and using power to reach their individual goals. They usually say the problem is corruption, but their idea is "good", but no, their idea is stupid because you can't design a system that doesn't consider that individuals tend to seek their benefit and corruption exists. State shall be as small as possible in order to leave the individuals with as much resources as they can and as much freedom as possible, then, they might start taking their own decisssions, surely most of them are gonna make lots of mistakes, but that's part of a learning process. Life's not "fair", "nice", "paradise", neither "hell", "constant suffering"...maybe we need to learn to deal with that fact instead of asking a mesiah to come and rule us, but I serously doubt that's gonna happen short term.

Living in a leftist shithole like Germany, I can certainly confirm that this is true. I visited Norway (where they nationalized oil) and Denmark last year, and can tell you that people suffer even more in those places. I wish we had a right-wing government like Poland or Hungary where people are completely free and happy.

Nice to see you are aware that Germany and those countries aren't an example of capitalism and freedom. They are seriously regulated, taxes are high, etc. But, ofcourse, compared with freedom in a shithole like Venezuela, you may look like a Libertarian country hahaha
This index might be useful to know which countries are effectively closer to capitalism (free and voluntary relations among individuals):
https://www.heritage.org/index/

USA, Germany and Norway might be kinda far from top, and surely Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea are at the bottom. Economic freedom tends to be the most relevant one. If people are less burdened in taxes they are prosperous and might plot and buy guns to kill a tyrant, but when people are disarmed, poor and dependant on the state, they are f****d.

 

[Kartoffel]

USA, Germany and Norway might be kinda far from top, and surely Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea are at the bottom. Economic freedom tends to be the most relevant one. If people are less burdened in taxes they are prosperous and might plot and buy guns to kill a tyrant, but when people are disarmed, poor and dependant on the state, they are f****d.

They also might buy a gun and shoot your kids and all their friends in school.
There is no evidence for the old neoliberal mantra that lowering taxes will significantly increase economic growth, certainly not to the point where you would see a net plus of government revenue. Most countries with a high standard of living, high social mobility, and low incidence of mental illness and economic inequality (those go together in affluent countries) have relatively high taxation and redistribution (direct or indirect). Lowering taxes across the board will simply lead to the already well off getting an even bigger piece of the cake, and not to everybody beeing free and prosperous. If you want a prospering people you need to offer them a society with good infrastructure, affordable and good education to promote a high skill level and innovation, institutions that create equal opportunities and social mobility, and a safety net that will provide some basic protection for the inevitable loosers of an increasingly changing economy. Unfortunately all these things do not just magically appear but have to be paid for by someone.

 

[managing]

They also might buy a gun and shoot your kids and all their friends in school.
There is no evidence for the old neoliberal mantra that lowering taxes will significantly increase economic growth, certainly not to the point where you would see a net plus of government revenue. Most countries with a high standard of living, high social mobility, and low incidence of mental illness and economic inequality (those go together in affluent countries) have relatively high taxation and redistribution (direct or indirect). Lowering taxes across the board will simply lead to the already well off getting an even bigger piece of the cake, and not to everybody beeing free and prosperous. If you want a prospering people you need to offer them a society with good infrastructure, affordable and good education to promote a high skill level and innovation, institutions that create equal opportunities and social mobility, and a safety net that will provide some basic protection for the inevitable loosers of an increasingly changing economy. Unfortunately all these things do not just magically appear but have to be paid for by someone.

I for one recognized your sarcasm about Germany being a shithole. I very recently traveled extensively across Northern Germany and have good friends in Hamburg. Quite a lovely country you have there. Not perfect, for sure. But quite nice.

 

[Kartoffel]

I for one recognized your sarcasm about Germany being a shithole. I very recently traveled extensively across Northern Germany and have good friends in Hamburg. Quite a lovely country you have there. Not perfect, for sure. But quite nice.

Thanks, I am from Hamburg

 

[vulture]

They also might buy a gun and shoot your kids and all their friends in school.
There is no evidence for the old neoliberal mantra that lowering taxes will significantly increase economic growth, certainly not to the point where you would see a net plus of government revenue. Most countries with a high standard of living, high social mobility, and low incidence of mental illness and economic inequality (those go together in affluent countries) have relatively high taxation and redistribution (direct or indirect). Lowering taxes across the board will simply lead to the already well off getting an even bigger piece of the cake, and not to everybody beeing free and prosperous. If you want a prospering people you need to offer them a society with good infrastructure, affordable and good education to promote a high skill level and innovation, institutions that create equal opportunities and social mobility, and a safety net that will provide some basic protection for the inevitable loosers of an increasingly changing economy. Unfortunately all these things do not just magically appear but have to be paid for by someone.

Not all the countries where citizens have access to guns have mass murders. You could perform mass murder with a truck loaded on gas.
Most of the countries up in the list of economic freedom are prosperous, most of the countries low in economic freedom are extremely poor.
State ridden education leaves the gate open to indoctrination. If I need education, why do I need a third party in between? (state)
I like this reasoning on the subject:

It's dead simple and shows you where it leads to have a big state. Remember the only non-voluntary relationship you have is with the state. You are not actually obliged to buy a smartphone or get insurance, but surely obliged to pay for whatever the state tells you to pay, if you don't, you better know how to hide...
The bigger the state, the less resources available for you to freely use. When the states decides to invest 7% of citizens money on heatlh: what if you need better feeding and want better feeding to avoid getting sick instead of paying white coats to treat symptoms? you can't decide, you have no power over those funds. You may make mistakes, but would you rather being able to make mistakes by YOUR decisions than suffering consequences of burocrats decisions over your life?

 

[managing]

Thanks, I am from Hamburg

Any city with the engineering and social foresight to build a massive tunnel under its largest river . . . 100 years ago is doing something right!

My friend (originally from Colombia) married a German (they met when both were working in the US) and now lives there. Truly enjoyed our time there, and she loves it. She is learning German, getting a graduate degree, and becoming a citizen.

To kind of go back to the political content of the thread: There is a church in the center of Hamburg that was mol destroyed by bombing in WWII. Its ruins were left standing as a memorial to Hamburgers who died in the war. And across the plaza from it is another memorial. This one to the Jews of Hamburg who perished, in one way or another, at the hands of its non-Jewish citizens.

I love the yin-yang of this. In the US you would have a nationalist faction screaming about those who perished in the bombing and denying the Holocaust. And you would also have a liberal faction screaming about the Holocaust and blaming the residents for their own demise (and denying they deserve a memorial). Both factions would demand their own memorial to the absolute exclusion of the other.

Yet here you have the two co-existing, 100' apart, ostensibly part of the same memorial. And of course, they are both part of the same tragic chapter of history. It seems so simple and obvious, as symbolized in this memorial, that all the deaths were tragic and are to be remembered . . . and repetition of these mistakes fervently avoided.

 

[Kartoffel]

Not all the countries where citizens have access to guns have mass murders. You could perform mass murder with a truck loaded on gas.
Most of the countries up in the list of economic freedom are prosperous, most of the countries low in economic freedom are extremely poor.
State ridden education leaves the gate open to indoctrination. If I need education, why do I need a third party in between? (state)
I like this reasoning on the subject:

It's dead simple and shows you where it leads to have a big state. Remember the only non-voluntary relationship you have is with the state. You are not actually obliged to buy a smartphone or get insurance, but surely obliged to pay for whatever the state tells you to pay, if you don't, you better know how to hide...
The bigger the state, the less resources available for you to freely use. When the states decides to invest 7% of citizens money on heatlh: what if you need better feeding and want better feeding to avoid getting sick instead of paying white coats to treat symptoms? you can't decide, you have no power over those funds. You may make mistakes, but would you rather being able to make mistakes by YOUR decisions than suffering consequences of burocrats decisions over your life?

No, not all countries. But there is a significant correlation between low marginal tax rates and increasing social/economic inequality, and then there is a clear significant correlation between inequality and mentall illness, rate of violence, incarceration, and so on. So, a low-tax, highly unequal country with quasi free access to guns is the perfect place to get shot.
In theory, I agree with all your basic sentiments and I somehow dislike the realtionship between citizens and the state that can coerce me to pay property taxes, send my kid to a school with indoctrinated teachers, etc. But I am not so naive as to think that simply lowering taxes, and providing more economic freedom will remedy that. The realtionship will remain the same while the society around us becomes even worse, with the rich getting richer and more influential, and the middle class and lower class people becoming more desperate, sick, and violent.
I would also like to life in a society where everbody is free from government coercion and can work for, and achieve a good life if they just work hard enough. Simply providing more economic freedom, though, will just result in a horrible dystopia like the United States .
I come from a working class family where nobody ever attended university or made much money, and I was the first to ever graduate from one. The only way that was possible, is because people in Germany pay relatively high taxes so that I could go to a good (free of charge) Kindergarden, learn to play an instrument, be part of a sports club, and get free tutoring, in order to later attend a university free of charge (an idea utterly absurd to Americans or Brits). My parents would never have been able to afford all these things on their own, so I know on a personal level that paying your taxes has a good side for society.
Social upward mobility, the chance to move up in life for those who were not born with a silver spoon in their mouths, is inversely correlated with low taxation and inequality, and I have never seen any evidence that higher taxes is negatively correlated with cultural freedom. So, high taxes will not causally lead a more unfree society just as lowering taxes will not free you from the oppression of government and big corporations.

 

[Sobieski]

Which gene encodes making retarded comparisons between humans and dog breeds? Are white people the huskies or the rottweilers ? You really seem not to be aware how ridiculous your arguments are. You subscribe to the worst and most outdated form of genetic determinism. I think even most modern geneticists would be embarassed to claim that there is a gene that encodes the headstrong character of huskies. My parents own a husky btw, and he is the lamest, most submissive dog you will ever see. Every retriever is a bullheaded daredevil compared to him.

Would you be open to the study of the heritability of intelligence between groups of people based on geographic ancestry? Ie comparing those of East Asian decent against say Australian aborigines (for a random example)

 

[Sobieski]

No, not all countries. But there is a significant correlation between low marginal tax rates and increasing social/economic inequality, and then there is a clear significant correlation between inequality and mentall illness, rate of violence, incarceration, and so on. So, a low-tax, highly unequal country with quasi free access to guns is the perfect place to get shot.
In theory, I agree with all your basic sentiments and I somehow dislike the realtionship between citizens and the state that can coerce me to pay property taxes, send my kid to a school with indoctrinated teachers, etc. But I am not so naive as to think that simply lowering taxes, and providing more economic freedom will remedy that. The realtionship will remain the same while the society around us becomes even worse, with the rich getting richer and more influential, and the middle class and lower class people becoming more desperate, sick, and violent.
I would also like to life in a society where everbody is free from government coercion and can work for, and achieve a good life if they just work hard enough. Simply providing more economic freedom, though, will just result in a horrible dystopia like the United States .
I come from a working class family where nobody ever attended university or made much money, and I was the first to ever graduate from one. The only way that was possible, is because people in Germany pay relatively high taxes so that I could go to a good (free of charge) Kindergarden, learn to play an instrument, be part of a sports club, and get free tutoring, in order to later attend a university free of charge (an idea utterly absurd to Americans or Brits). My parents would never have been able to afford all these things on their own, so I know on a personal level that paying your taxes has a good side for society.
Social upward mobility, the chance to move up in life for those who were not born with a silver spoon in their mouths, is inversely correlated with low taxation and inequality, and I have never seen any evidence that higher taxes is negatively correlated with cultural freedom. So, high taxes will not causally lead a more unfree society just as lowering taxes will not free you from the oppression of government and big corporations.

Those economic policies are why your government is hell bent on welcoming economic immigrants to your country (and Europe). Good luck funding that lifestyle when the native population is below replacement level and the demographics shift to an aging population.

 

[Kartoffel]

Would you be open to the study of the heritability of intelligence between groups of people based on geographic ancestry? Ie comparing those of East Asian decent against say Australian aborigines (for a random example)

Ok, so you are gonna show me that aborigines do worse in school than geeky asian kids and have a lower average IQ score. Then what?

 

[Sobieski]

Ok, so you are gonna show me that aborigines do worse in school than geeky asian kids and have a lower average IQ score. Then what?

No, not studying academic or social success , I mean the study into actual verifiable genetic differences in heritable behavioural traits such as intelligence. Similar to the study of genetic diseases and inherited susceptibility to them etc.