Do you agree with race realism?

Science is providing more.

It doesn't. The difference is vastly more complex than simple neocortex size. It it were just size, huge brains like ours would have evolved hundreds of millions of years ago.

They have, but the correlation coefficient is fairly modest. Other largely genetic factors -- the internal structure of the neocortex, types and concentrations of neurotransmitters, number and speed of neural connections, etc. -- seem to be just as important as size, and they seem to have largely independent genetic bases. No matter: as with loaded dice, the statistical link doesn't have to be strong to have its effect over thousands of iterations -- especially as, unlike dice rolls, successive human genetic trials are not independent but selective.

 

Provide the links to peer reviewed papers on neocortex proportional size to total brain mass as a function to demographic groups, please!

 

Emotions aside......I don't buy it. Not only do I not understand "evolution".....I discount it entirely. We are not creations of accident. Sure, we can use it to excuse our behavior and shortcomings, but we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

The research focuses on total cranial capacity:

https://www.researchgate.net/public...ferences_Evidence_from_musculoskeletal_traits

https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03210739

That is probably a decent proxy for neocortex ratio because the rest of the brain varies less in size between mammalian species.

 

It’s not about total brain size but the size of the neocortex as a proportion of total brain size in the individual. I’m sure that whales have a larger total brain size than humans but have not created great civilizations or even developed the capacity to defend themselves.

 

Based only on your emotions, which you just falsely claimed were "aside."

Then your opinion is objectively incorrect, and can be safely ignored.

Selection pressure is not an "accident" because successive rolls of the genetic dice are not independent. We know that over thousands of generations, selection pressure turned a wolf into a chihuahua. Why do you believe it could not have turned a pre-wolf into a wolf, and a pre-pre-wolf into a pre-wolf, etc. given millions of generations?

There is a difference between excusing and explaining.

I've learned that that is what people say when I have proved them wrong.

 

That is only one factor of many in a complex web of relationships, and may not be the most important one. Research in this area is still producing a lot of new knowledge, and the relationships are not clear yet.

Ratio of brain size to body size is also significant to the differences in animal intelligence -- but again, not the whole story.

They can defend themselves pretty well, just not against people.

 

Good commentary.

Richard Dawkins wrote a book in 1976 entitled "The Selfish Gene." Its premise was that the groups of genes contained within any individual living thing are competing against the groups of genes contained within other individual living things. The gene groupings that reside within living things that successfully reproduce will come to outnumber the gene groupings that reside within living things that are not as successful at reproducing. Essentially, individuals are just survival machines for the genes. The genes themselves are incapable of reproducing without help, so genes that form and program survival machines that are successful are able to reproduce more of those same genes.

Even though the book is dated, it is an easy read and it contains extremely interesting thoughts on the big picture of evolution. I highly recommend it for anyone interested in the subject of evolution and genetics.

People who find genetic determinism to be intolerable are being small-minded. Superiority is highly subjective. Nature's measure of superiority consists solely of which gene groupings perpetuate themselves and which don't. Sometimes, a highly developed intelligence is contrary to survival, and that particular gene grouping could be said to be inferior.

 

I have asked that people provide citations of peer reviewed studies showing the correlation of neocortex area to total brain area within human demographics but the subject matter is too emotionally charged at this time so I am left wanting.

If you wish to declare yourself the victor in this discourse without sufficient warrants in the overall argumentation then who am I to prevent you from making that assertion.

I will not keep arguing with you however as I have greater things to attend to and I sincerely wish that you have greater things to attend to as well.

I wish you the best!

 

Or reproduction (especially if it is male, apparently ;^)

That is what people are not comfortable with. It just doesn't sit well with many that the "welfare queen" with eight children by five different tall, strong, handsome, athletic, dominant (but stupid, violent and irresponsible) men is proving her genes and those of her baby daddies are superior to those of the high-achieving but childless career woman and her incel male counterparts.

Don't get me wrong. IMO most people -- especially most men -- do not possess the qualities needed to be good parents, and should not have children. But we need to find a way to reconcile the economic exigencies of modern civilization with the biological reality of evolution, and to date we have not done that at all.

 

That specific issue does not appear to have attracted much if any research attention. Ideological aversion may be part of the reason.

If you are addressing me, I don't think our exchange warrants such an interpretation.

 

agreed they're people who are genetically predisposed to be dependent upon the taxpayer, they do not possess genetic traits like shame nor pride.

the evolutionary dice made their brain size smaller and unable to have proper decision-making skills like getting a job.

race realism 101, citation below.

https://www.nap.edu/read/9719/chapter/8

 

Then ignore it. You have no case to be made with me. You have all the answers that suit your narrative.

 

That's what happens when welfare is designed to keep people in poverty.

 

That's not it. It's their terrible .. TERRIBLE lifestyle/health choices. Those choices impact in many ways - one example of which is increased rate of neural tube defects (resulting in stillbirths and/or profound disability and severely limited lifespans), which is a result of pregnancy diets lacking folate - an incredible common nutrient found in the things most of us eat daily as a matter of course. Fresh fruit and vegetables, nuts, legumes, fish, etc. In fact, it's difficult to have so little folate in the diet that it causes neural tube defects - you would pretty much need to have very low to nil consumption of fresh fruit/vegetables, legumes, fish.

PS: Important to note that that recommended pregnancy diet also happens to be the cheapest available, especially when it's restricted to brown rice, beans, and in-season fresh fruit/vegetables - with perhaps two small serves of canned tuna or salmon per week. A diet of calorie dense processed and convenience foods is much more expensive. IOW, these are freely made choices - nothing to do with poverty.

 

When someone is a 'victim' of their own choices, what do you call it?

 

Your delusion.

 

Depends. Huge subject on its own. I've heard debates about whether or not tax dollars should be used for rescuing people in danger doing voluntary things like skiing and mountain climbing. (I think in some instances, they actually do have to pay for their own rescue). But we pay medicaid tax dollars for people whose health fails due to eating fatty foods. You do have sin taxes on tobacco and alcohol. Bankruptcy protection exists for those that made bad financial decisions and more. Really depends.

 

"Evolution." You could look it up. That's how people got such big brains. But evolution hasn't produced a "finished product" and is not capable of doing so. You've heard of the Darwin Awards? They are called that because while most people are genetically predisposed to make mostly good choices, others are not, and a big part of that genetic predisposition is called, "intelligence."

Intelligence is the ability to understand. To understand is to have an accurate mental model or representation of the phenomenon in question. A mental model is accurate if it can reliably predict the behavior of that phenomenon. Being able to predict things reliably enables good choices. See how that works?

 

Of course, "good choices" are totally subjective - it all depends on who/what is judging. For example, a super genius that chose not to procreate because his intelligence tells him it isn't wise to have kids is a failure in the "judgment" of his particular grouping of genes. On the other hand, a complete imbecile who leaves behind 20 children who then go on to procreate even more children themselves is highly successful when judged from that same viewpoint.*

*It is a shame that I need to add this footnote, but for our less scientifically-honest forum members, what I wrote above is in no way racist. I would appreciate it if you don't project your preconceived notions and emotions into the meaning of what I wrote above.

 

disagree, whites use welfare as a stepping stone to gainful employment because they have higher IQ's.

poor decision making skills are inherent to other races with lower IQ's, thus their lifestyle choices of dependence and entitlement to what smarter people have.

https://www.nap.edu/read/9719/chapter/8

 

Existence is the judge. Unlike other animals, we are aware that in the long run, personal existence is not an option for us. So we can only exist through our genes.

Not necessarily. His blood relatives also carry his genes. So in addition to "reproductive success" (the number of offspring one has) biologists speak of "inclusive fitness," meaning the number of copies of one's genes that make it through to the next generation. From the point of view of your parents' inclusive fitness, your nieces and nephews are as good as your own children.

Fortunately, all that Darwinian stuff will soon be moot. We are nearing the end of the 3 billion-year Darwinian phase of life on earth, and entering the Intelligent Design phase. We will be able to choose our children's genes, and the less desirable ones will simply be left out.

 

I see. So you believe that no humans make poor choices resulting in penury or other misfortune?

Very interesting. That's quite the fantasy life you have going, yourself!

 

It's not a huge subject, in reality. We've made it so, by insisting on feting every last whim and failure.

There's nothing simpler than ensuring that the right people get the help. Equality is crucial, in any model. Models predicated upon equity without consideration of the nature of the need (IOW, what caused it), are deliberately compromising those with the 'right' need. The equality model doesn't even require complex policing, all it requires is criteria to be met - just like a mortgage. How much rent you pay, your spending habits, your lifestyle habits, etc .. should all be considered. Exceed threshold on any one of those criterion, and you're out. Everyone should be held to the same standard.

 

I had no idea Flint existed only in my mind.

Get the lead out...