Our liberal friends are incorrect again

[scourge]

Our Greatest Strength, DiversityTM

In the last chapter Roth discusses the likely future of the West and the world. He estimates that the average American IQ will decline from 98 to 95 by mid-century. This may seem a small drop, but it will have dire effects for elites, because the percentage of Americans with an IQ of at least 120 will fall from 7.1 to 4.8. In the United States and Western Europe, there will likely emerge a rich White-and-Asian elite and a Black-and-Brown majority. This demographic transformation will profoundly impair their economic and military strength and their intellectual world leadership.

China will likely emerge as the new world superpower. Over the next 40 years, the number of well-trained Chinese with IQs over 120 will outnumber their American counterparts by about eight to one. Roth writes, “The upshot is that the gap in the potential for innovation and economic growth between China and the U.S. will growenormously and begin to have its effects in the very near future.”

http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/hbd-human-biodiversity/a-whimper-and-a-bang/

[UmlautsForEnglish]

Liberal professor's bias towards human equality causes inaccuracies in a study human brain size, now proven wrong.

In a 1981 book, “The Mismeasure of Man,” the paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould asserted that Morton, believing that brain size was a measure of intelligence, had subconsciously manipulated the brain volumes of European, Asian and African skulls to favor his bias that Europeans had larger brains and Africans smaller ones.

But now physical anthropologists at the University of Pennsylvania, which owns Morton’s collection, have remeasured the skulls, and in an article that does little to burnish Dr. Gould’s reputation as a scholar, they conclude that almost every detail of his analysis is wrong.

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/science/14skull.html

[Conservationist]

Liberalism is a mental disorder. They are incorrect about everything.

Sadly, most conservatives are liberals.

The root of liberalism:

Status groups, Weber contended, are the creators of all new styles of life. In his heyday, the turn of the 19th century, the most stylish new status sphere, no more than 30 years old, was known as la vie boheme, the bohemian life. The bohemians were artists plus the intellectuals and layabouts in their orbit. They did their best to stand bourgeois propriety on its head through rakish dishabille, louder music, more wine, great gouts of it, ostentatious cohabitation, and by flaunting their poverty as a virtue. And why? Because they all came from the bourgeoisie themselves originally and wanted nothing more desperately than to distinguish themselves from it. They seldom mentioned the upper class, Marx's owners of "the means of production." They seldom mentioned Marx's working class, except in sentimental appreciation of the workers' occasional show of rebelliousness. No, as the late Jean-Francois Revel said of mid-20th century French intellectuals, the bohemians' sole object was to separate themselves from the mob, the rabble, which today is known as the middle class.

http://www.neh.gov/whoweare/wolfe/lecture.html

False altruism is inverse class consciousness.

[sidereal]

Culture isn't just skin deep:

But Kitayama and Na found differently. In their study, they had European-American and Asian-American students do an exercise in which they were told to memorize faces and behaviors. For example, they might see a woman's face and read that Julie checks the fire alarms every night before bed. In a second phase of the experiment, the researchers found evidence that European-Americans had made an inference about Julie's personality during the first memory task, while Asian-Americans had not.

One way they did this was actually measuring participants' brain wave patterns. For example, if a European-American had seen the information above and later was shown Julie's face, immediately followed by personality traits, such as courageous or brave, that clearly go against the traits implied by her behavior, a particular flash of brain activity would happen within a split second, demonstrating "surprise." But in Asian-Americans, such a brain activity didn't happen because they hadn't assumed from Julie's behavior that she was cautious or neurotic.

This shows that there are real cultural differences in how people perceive others, Kitayama says. "It isn't just a matter of intentional deliberate effort, but the immediate response to somebody's behavior appears to be very different."

"We often feel that culture is like clothes; you strip them off, and we are all humans," Kitayama says. "There's some truth to that, but studies like this begin to demonstrate that culture can go much deeper. What appears to be a natural being, or a human mind, may be culturally shaped or formed."

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-actions-personality-east-west.html

Do different cultures simply rely more heavily on different parts of a universal, evolved, cognitive configuration in humans which came to fruition in the Pleistocene in Africa when it is thought humans evolved into their present form or did the evolution of cognition continue after humans split from Africa and take different paths? The difference lies in the whether the physical brain is different in various ethnicities or the same. i.e. do the research findings come down to different physical brains or just different cultures/environments which utilize different aspects of the same physical 'human' brain? The article leaves either option open I think. Interesting though..

[sidereal]

Culture isn't just skin deep:

But Kitayama and Na found differently. In their study, they had European-American and Asian-American students do an exercise in which they were told to memorize faces and behaviors. For example, they might see a woman's face and read that Julie checks the fire alarms every night before bed. In a second phase of the experiment, the researchers found evidence that European-Americans had made an inference about Julie's personality during the first memory task, while Asian-Americans had not.

One way they did this was actually measuring participants' brain wave patterns. For example, if a European-American had seen the information above and later was shown Julie's face, immediately followed by personality traits, such as courageous or brave, that clearly go against the traits implied by her behavior, a particular flash of brain activity would happen within a split second, demonstrating "surprise." But in Asian-Americans, such a brain activity didn't happen because they hadn't assumed from Julie's behavior that she was cautious or neurotic.

This shows that there are real cultural differences in how people perceive others, Kitayama says. "It isn't just a matter of intentional deliberate effort, but the immediate response to somebody's behavior appears to be very different."

"We often feel that culture is like clothes; you strip them off, and we are all humans," Kitayama says. "There's some truth to that, but studies like this begin to demonstrate that culture can go much deeper. What appears to be a natural being, or a human mind, may be culturally shaped or formed."

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-actions-personality-east-west.html

Do different cultures simply rely more heavily on different parts of a universal, evolved, cognitive configuration in humans which came to fruition in the Pleistocene in Africa when it is thought humans evolved into their present form or did the evolution of cognition continue after humans split from Africa and take different paths? The difference lies in the whether the physical brain is different in various ethnicities or the same. i.e. do the research findings come down to different physical brains or just different cultures/environments which utilize different aspects of the same physical 'human' brain? The article leaves either option open I think. Interesting though.

[Conservationist]

Do different cultures simply rely more heavily on different parts of a universal, evolved, cognitive configuration in humans which came to fruition in the Pleistocene in Africa when it is thought humans evolved into their present form or did the evolution of cognition continue after humans split from Africa and take different paths?

Of course the evolution continued! What happened in Africa was a base line. There's more difference between social classes than people acknowledge. Literally your upper half of the middle class are ten points higher than the blue collar zone, who are themselves ten points higher than the labor and food service zone.

[scourge]

With viewership flagging due to consistent lack of credibility and desperate to get something - anything - correct, crypto leftist objective media consults top psychics on economic outlook. Positive and progressive reporting or bust!

CNN Getting Desperate for Accurate Economic Predictions

[sofiana]

Please troll this page, all they say are lies.


http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=140161332687664

[sofiana]

Their official web site

http://www.maryakub.com/

Pseudo-christians, occupying an old local temple.

[scourge]

Hope. Change. Liberal democracy. Melting pot. Results:

The people are afraid, terrified in some cases.
The people distrust and in some cases are hostile to mainstream sources of information.

Jus sayin'

[scourge]

Single speciation event of homo sapiens highly unlikely http://lacomunidad.elpais.com/blogfiles/pinero/Templeton_Evolution_2007.pdf

We are not "all one humanity". Far better, by having taken separate paths at different times toward a similar successful form, we are very diverse and should explore this path further through plural conservation against totalitarian utopian unity.

[Conservationist]

We are one species, but this species came about when smarter hominin ancestors killed off the others.

They didn't go far enough.

This is more complex than race. What do we do with the proles?

Under a caste system and monarchy, they were better off. Now technology will replace them.

[scourge]

Liberalism is a mental illness.

PA is generally defined as a sincere attempt to help others that instead harms others or oneself, and is “an unhealthy focus on others to the detriment of one’s own needs.” Several of the contributors offer tantalizing definitions: PA is likely when people “falsely believe that they caused the other’s problems, or falsely believe that they have the means to relieve the person of suffering.” Or, it is “the false belief that one’s own success, happiness, or well-being is a source of unhappiness for others.” PA “often involves self-righteousness,” and can result in “impulsive and ineffective efforts to equalize or level the playing field.”

http://www.amren.com/features/2012/07/pathological-altruism/

[scourge]

Endless social programs do not work.