Full-Time Hoops #HermStrong Retweeted
OH MY GOD! MY NIGGA JELANI REMEMBER A NIGGA [ME], BUT HE CALLIN' ME UH LIE! HOW DARE MY NIGGA CALL ME A LIE!
AND LOOK AT THE PUDGY, PORTLY, OUT-OF-SHAPE, OREO QUICKLY COME TO JELANI'S DEFENSE WITHOUT KNOWING THE BASIS OF THE BOY'S GRIPE (COMPLAINT) WITH JELANI! THE FAT NIGGER IS PARTIAL TO THE NIGGERS. RERUN'S BIAS TOWARDS BLACKS. HE TAKES THE SIDE OF NIGGERS REGARDLESS IF HE KNOWS THE FACTS OR KNOWS THE NIGGER WHOSE SIDE HE'S TAKING IS WRONG! AND HE DOES ALL OF THIS WHILE BEING EMPLOYED BY WHITES AND GETTING A CHECK FROM WHITES! I CALL THIS BEING IN THE GRIPS OF SOME SERIOUS GENETIC RELATEDNESS (FAVORING THOSE OF GENETIC SIMILARITY)! READ BELOW.
https://twitter.com/RealMataLo14/status/1201940980892622848
Mexico!!!
This Rat-Faced Beaner Needs To Remain Right Where He Is (The Piece Of Shit Country He Hails From)!
AYY, ANOTHER TALL, BLANCO MEXICANO AT UCLA. AS AN ASIDE, DO YOU PEOPLE NOTICE THAT THE MEXICANS THAT PLAY DIVISION I BASKETBALL HAVE A LOT OF EUROPEAN GENES AS DENOTED BY THEIR FACIAL FEATURES, SKIN COLOR, AND HEIGHT AND VERY LITTLE NATIVE AMERICAN DNA?
Why
Are We Innately Driven By Ethnic Pride And To Side With Those Of Our
Own Race Or Ethnicity (Favor Them And Treat Them Favorably). What's The
Unconscious Genetic Benefit Of This? It Has To Do With Inclusive
Fitness. I'll Excerpt Some Kanazawa Concerning This Later!
If you pay attention to the world news, you know that ethnic and
nationalist conflict has unfortunately been a constant feature of human
history. It is no exaggeration to say that there has not been a region
or a historical period that has not been affected by some sort of ethnic
and nationalist conflict, and this is unfortunately still true at the
dawn of the third millennium of recorded human history. The history of
human civilization has in large part been a history of ethnic and
nationalist conflict.
Why is this? Why is ethnic and nationalist conflict so persistent throughout history and the world?
Nationalism
and other forms of ethnic movement pose a puzzle - especially for a
school of the Standard Social Science Model the rational choice theory.
All benefits of successful nationalist or ethnic movements, such as
ethnic independence, political autonomy, and state recognition, are
shared equally by everyone. So, for example, once ethnic independence is
granted to a nation (say, Quebec in Canada), all members of the nation
are equally independent, and no one can be excluded from enjoying the
newly acquired ethnic independence. It means that those members of an
ethnic group or a nation who did not contribute at all toward the cause
(the "freeriders") get to enjoy the benefits of successful ethnic
movements as much as those who risked life and limb in order to achieve
the success (the "zealots"). Freeriders and zealots enjoy the same level
of freedom and independence. Why, then, would anyone risk injury and
death in order to bring about the change? In any situation like this, it
is always rational to freeride, and no rational actors will ever
contribute. If everyone is rational, then no one will contribute to the
cause, and it will not get off the ground, let alone succeed. How, then,
can any ethnic and nationalist movement ever succeed?
Once
again, evolutionary psychology can solve the puzzles left unresolved by
the Standard Social Science Model in general or the rational choice
theory in particular. Joseph M. Whitmeyer was a student of Pierre L. van
den Berghe...Whitmeyer argues, and mathematically proves, that any gene
that inclines its carriers to help others whom they might marry, or
those whose children their children might marry, or those who
grandchildren their grandchildren might marry, etc., will be favored by
evolution and thus spread. By contributing toward the welfare of other
members of such an "extended family" or tribe, so to speak, you are
essentially providing benefits for your genetic offspring, both distant
and near. Whitmeyer argues that what usually passes as an ethnic group
is essentially such an extended family because members of ethnic groups
tend to intermarry.
Whitmeyer's insight is that while it is economically
irrational to contribute toward ethnic and nationalist movements, as
the rational choice theorists point out, because the benefits of
successful ethnic collective action cannot be excluded from freeriders, it is nonetheless evolutionarily and biologically rational. It is irrational from the individual's perspective; it is rational from the genes' perspective.
Whitmeyer's solution to the problem of ethnic and nationalist conflict contains both good and bad news. The
bad news is that our tendency toward ethnocentrism - our desire to help
and promote others of "our own kind" - is probably innate. Because
they assume that humans are born blank slates, social scientists have
always argued that individuals are born entirely free of prejudice, but
learn to be racist and ethnocentric through childhood socialization,
usually by racist parents. Evolutionary psychology in general and
Whitmeyer's work in particular suggest that this is unlikely to be the
case. Humans are instead born racist and ethnocentric, and learn through
socialization and education not to act on such innate tendencies.
Humans are innately ethnocentric because ethnocentrism - helping others
of one's group members at the cost of all others - was adaptive in the
ancestral environment.
The good news is that we can
easily overcome our innate ethnocentric tendencies...How? Whitmeyer's
mathematical model provides the answer: intermarriage. Our brain is
designed to perceive anybody within an "extended family" of
intermarrying individuals as "us," and anybody outside of it as "them."
If members of hostile groups began intermarrying, we could eventually
eliminate the hostility itself.
(Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters)
The tendency to favour kin over non-kin is an extremely deep trend in the living world, found not only in animals but in plants, bacteria, and even viruses.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdLOlYBp8g4
Racial Favoritism Occurs Across Racial Lines (THE SAAD TRUTH_69)
http://web.csulb.edu/~kmacd/SalterRevNatObs.htm
Successful strategies require internal social controls, especially on free-riding, individualistic elites. As Salter notes, the free rider problem was successfully solved long ago via punishment and monitoring in the small groups in which humans lived and, in principle at least, there is no problem in doing so in the modern world, especially if social controls are maintained by governments. Hence the importance of a territorial ethno-state for defending ethnic interests. Defending ethnic interests in multi-ethnic states is a great deal more difficult because the power of the state itself becomes a potential weapon against the interests of particular ethnic groups. For example, throughout history majority ethnic groups have oppressed minorities. More recently in the liberal West, coalitions of minority groups have attempted to influence immigration policy against the interests of the majority.
...
Conversely, an aggressive strategy for a minority group in
a multiethnic state is to advocate ideologies that confuse the ethnic
identity of the majority, de-emphasise ethnicity as a social or biological
category, engender chronic shame and guilt for ethnic identity, encourage
individualism among members of the ethnic majority, oppose secessionist
legis-lation, and sever ties between ethnic culture and the state (for
example, by de-legitimising church-state relation-ships or by advocating
the ideology of a "concept nation" where the nation has no ethnic
connotations). Minor-ities, because they are more mobilised, may often
have cultural influence far out of proportion to their numbers, and their
influence is magnified if they have elite status. As Salter notes,
"culture wars can be deadly serious".
Pro-minority political regimes are unstable because they
are prone to changing ethnic proportions in population, control of
resources, and social status. A minority that succeeded in making itself
the majority by influencing immigration policy, would then face the
difficult talk of reversing its traditional leftist ideology; it would
need to find a way to portray immigration control and majority patriotism
as moral enterprises. Ethnic interests are best optimised, around the
world, by ethnic states where citizenship is defined by ethnic criteria -
a prescription which Salter terms "universal nationalism." All existing
ethno-states are vulnerable to displacement by highly mobilised, rapidly
reproducing ethnic minorities. Globalism and multiculturalism legitimate
these trends, but in the long run they are a threat to everyone's ethnic
interest because both ideologies actually legitimate and necessarily
increase competition of the nasty zero-sum kind.
Look At All Of This Ethnic Division And This Is Just One Segment Of One Industry (The Basketball Industry) In America. And It's Driven By A Desire To Undermine White Dominance And Influence In This Industry For These Ethnic Groups' Own Interests (Their Own Genetic Interests: They Attract More Members Of Their Ethnic Group To The Sport, They Place More Members Of Their Ethnic Group Into Prominent Positions, Their Ethnic Group Attains Higher Status And Wealth Within The Industry And This Leads To Greater Reproductive Success Within Their Ethnic Group).
When Non-Native Hawaiians Ask ME This I NEVER Tell Them Why I've Come To This Hellhole (To Encourage Native Hawaiians To Breed Amongst One Another, Outbreed Non-Native Hawaiians, And Eventually Repopulate And Reclaim Their Ancestral Land) Nor Do I Explain My Evolutionary Genetic Outlook On Life To Them (Explanation:
.)
The purpose of life is to pass on your genes (get as many copies of your genes into as many subsequent generations as possible) and everything we do from schooling to working to participating in sports to practicing a religion to shopping to socializing assists in accomplishing this goal (https://www.psypost.org/2020/01/new-psychology-study-indicates-pursuing-evolutionary-relevant-goals-provides-purpose-in-life-55163). I'm a eugenicists, so I don't intend to pass my genes on unless I can pass them onto a female that can create a genetically superior offspring. To put it another way, unless I can find, fornicate, and procreate with a female of the right racial type, facial type, body type, personality type, and behavioral type I'm not going to have a child and I'm not going to partake in activities that accomplish this goal (gain wealth, attain status, conspicuously consume, etc.).
And even If I were to play evolution's game (find a mate and procreate) whatever success would be short lived on an evolutionary scale - the superior genes that I'd worked so hard to pass along would eventually go extinct just as the culture that allowed those genes to survive and flourish would go extinct.
Just as a population is contaminated by other populations, so an individual's posterity is contaminated by that of his sexual partner. Your children are only half you, your grandchildren are only a quarter you. In a few generations the most you can hope for is a large number of descendants, each of who me bears only a tiny portion of you - a few genes - even if a few do bear your surname as well.
...
I have been a bit negative about memes, but they have their cheerful side as well. When we die there are two things we can leave behind us: genes and memes. We were built as gene machines, created to pass on our genes. But that aspect of us will be forgotten in three generations. Your child, even your grandchild, may bear a resemblance to you, perhaps in facial features, in a talent for music, in the color of her hair. But as each generation passes, the contribution of your genes is halved. It does not take long to reach negligible proportions. Our genes may be immortal but the collection of genes that is any one of us is bound to crumble away. Elizabeth II is a direct descendant of William the Conqueror. Yet it is quite probable that she bears not a single one of the old king's genes. We should not seek immortality in reproduction.
But if you contribute to the world's culture, if you have a good idea, compose a tune, invent a sparking plug, write a poem, it may live on, intact, long after your genes have dissolved in the common pool. Socrates may or may not a gene or two alive in the world today, as G.C. Williams has remarked, but who cares? The meme-complexes of Socrates, Leonardo, Copernicus, and Marconi are still going strong. (The Selfish Gene)
Contrary to belief in religion, belief in science is not or even negatively related to a sense of meaning in life. sciencedirect.com/science/articl
ترجمة المنشور
But -- reproduction as the answer to life's meaning cannot be dismissed quite so easily. Genetic evolution is the meaning of biologic life, in that it is the why and how of it, as well as the stock of future biological existence. The genes that survive -- and in turn the organisms they make -- are the winners in the existence game. Can we just dismiss this when considering the meaning of our own individual human lives? Sure, evolution itself does not have a specific direction or teleology, and genes themselves are not conscious, so there is not meaning in that sense. But evolution cannot just be shrugged off as something apart from us, take it or leave it. It is the biological explanation of who we are, how we got here, and the diversity of life. Over billions of years, life left the oceans, stretched limbs to cover the earth, raised wings to fly. Underlying it all are the replicating molecules that continue to copy themselves even now. We owe our existence to this process, and our future depends on it. Perhaps the meaning of your life as a biological creature is to make babies and help ensure the survival of life. In discussing the children she had with Carl Sagan, Ann Druyan put it like this: "When we come closest to each other we can create new life forms that carry on that continuity that stretches back all those billions of years, and in them are the generations of human beings who have struggled. That is magnificent."
By making babies, we continue life's pageant. In children, we cheat death.
This is all the fault of evolution. For countless generations our biochemical system adapted to increasing our chances of survival and reproduction, not our happiness. The biochemical system rewards actions conducive to survival and reproduction with pleasant sensations. But these are only an ephemeral sales gimmick. We struggle to get food and mates in order to avoid unpleasant sensations of hunger and to enjoy pleasing tastes and blissful orgasms. But nice tastes and blissful orgasms don't last very long, and if we want to feel them again we have to go out looking for more food and mates.
What might have happened if a rare mutation had created a squirrel who, after eating a single nut, enjoys as everlasting sensation of bliss? Technically, this could actually be done by rewiring the squirrel's brain. Who knows, perhaps it really happened to some lucky squirrel millions of years ago. But if so, that squirrel
enjoyed an extremely happy and extremely short life, and that was the end of the rare mutation. For the blissful squirrel would not have bothered to look for more nuts, let alone mates. The rival squirrels, who felt hungry again five minutes after eating a nut, had much better chances of surviving and passing their genes to the next generation. For exactly the same reason, the nuts we humans seek to gather - lucrative jobs, big houses, good-looking partners, seldom satisfy us long.
...It just indicates that evolution controls us with a broad range of pleasures...
When an animal is looking for something that increases its chances of survival and reproduction (e.g. food, partners or social status), the brain produces sensations of alertness and excitement, which drive the animal to make even greater efforts because they are so very agreeable...Humans too may prefer the excitement of the race to resting on their laurels of success...
Alas, the exciting sensations of the race are as transient as the blissful sensations of victory. The Don Juan enjoying the thrill of a one-night stand, the businessman enjoying biting his fingernails watching the Dow Jones rise and fall, and the gamer enjoying killing monsters on the computer screen will find no satisfaction remembering yesterday's adventures.
.jpg)
"human emotions evolved because they generally work to confer evolutionary benefits to us, helping us to ultimately increase the likelihood of survival or reproductive capacities...Happiness is not an end goal; it is a means to an end" https://amzn.to/32OQABF
"We're shaped for reproduction, not health. When it comes to sex and reproduction, we do things that are bad for our health and longevity, but good for our genes"
"Evolution has no interest in happiness per se: it is interested only in survival and reproduction, and it uses happiness and misery as mere goads. Evolution makes sure that no matter what we achieve, we remain dissatisfied, forever grasping for more."
Happiness Is Only a Proximate Goal
From an evolutionary perspective, human emotions evolved as they have because they generally work to confer evolutionary benefits to us, helping to ultimately increase the likelihood of survival and/or reproductive capacities. (See my brief textbook, Evolutionary Psychology 101). Just as anxiety evolved to help motivate adaptive behaviors, happiness has also evolved to help motivate adaptive behaviors.
If you look at the things that make people happy, you can quickly see that they generally map onto outcomes that would have led to increased probabilities of survival and/or reproduction for our ancestors. Here is a short list:
- Food
- Sex
- Engaging in fun times with friends
- Success in social contexts
- Task completion
In broad strokes, we can easily see how these kinds of outcomes not only have the capacity to lead to happiness, but that they also have clear benefits from an evolutionary perspective. The evolutionary take on happiness, then, is essentially this: Happiness is an affective state that motivates us to engage in actions that are likely to lead to outcomes that would, on average, lead to increases in the likelihood of survival and/or reproduction. (See Guitar et al., in preparation).
In evolutionary parlance, we would say that happiness is a proximate outcome. It matters, and it is nice. But it is not an ultimate evolutionary outcome. From an evolutionary perspective, ultimate outcomes pertain to outcomes that bear on increases in the likelihood of survival and reproduction. Thus, we may be thrilled to have a piece of chocolate cake on the table in front of us at a birthday party. But that momentary happiness is not an end goal in itself. We evolved to be happy when presented with rich food offerings because our ancestors, who were motivated to find rich foods, were more likely to eat and thus to survive and reproduce.
The germ of Wright’s premise is that evolution hardwired us to experience many (most?) irrelevant intense emotional reactions to various contexts in the modern environment that ultimately cause emotional suffering for the individual because they are programmed to maximize evolutionary success—not one’s own prolonged happiness. In fact, perhaps quite the contrary of generating satisfaction, evolution has selected for unhappiness (e.g., dissatisfaction, envy, guilt, fear)!
So what do we do with this? Most of us want to spend more time being happy (or at least not spend so much time being unhappy and suffering emotionally). But thanks to evolution we are built for only fleeting moments of happiness and prolonged feelings of dissatisfaction (a satisfied organism is not a motivated organism and thus not a winner in the game of natural selection!).
A contest is a situation in which different competitors have incompatible goals, so that success for one entails failure for the other(s). Often all want the same thing but only one can have it, such as the trophy, or the monogamous mate, or the auctioned painting. Biological evolution can be understood as a contest: winning is measured by reproductive success, and strictly speaking the criterion is not total offspring but rather successfully reproducing offspring. Put another way, natural selection is a contest in which nature measures success by the tally of grandchildren. Toward that end, individuals compete to attract and retain high-quality mates, with whom they will raise thriving offspring.
- “We measure success by how many people successful next to you.. we say you broke if everybody is broke except for you.”
I Don't Know Who Gives You This Advice, Senator Kerry, But It's Uninformed By Evolutionary Logic! The Only Success That Matters Is Reproductive Success, My White Nigga! All Of That Other Success Distracts You From Evolution's Only Goal (Passing On Your Genes).
Of course, individuals do not necessarily or consciously care about nature’s yardstick and may measure success in other ways. Individuals may judge their and each others’ success in terms of attracting romantic partners and even enjoying sexual relationships without reproduction. Potential mates may also evaluate an individual based on his or her success in other contests. As a familiar example, a man’s sex appeal to women is bolstered insofar as he bests other men in sports, business, or art. In contrast, men’s mate choices are largely indifferent to which women outperform other women in those arenas.
It all boils down to how "fit" you are. Not so much whether you can run a marathon or how much you can lift, but how many children you can produce that are yours. The more kids you have that are genetically yours, the more copies of your genes there will be in the following gene pool. That, and only that, is success in the gene's-eye view of the world. If more lofty perspectives come to mind when you contemplate the meaning of "success" - like doing well in school, having a great job, or writing a book - then consider this: your gene machine has been built to generate these fanciful ideas to maliciously motivate you into gaining status and resources that will translate into reproductive success. It's a genetic con.
As a male you can maximize your genetic fitness in one of two ways. One, you can invest a lot of parental effort and resources into just a few offspring. You put all your eggs into a small basket, nurturing and protecting a couple of kids, ensuring their survival into full maturity, and even helping them look after their own children. Alternatively, you can put all your eggs, or rather sperm, into a lot of baskets. Here you maximize the number of your offspring without really doing very much to support them, spreading your parental effort more thinly.
A male can much more easily adopt this latter reproductive strategy of high offspring-low effort if he "cheats" on his many female partners by misrepresenting his ability to acquire resources and his long-term parenting intentions... (Bad Intentions)
The Anatomy of Violence: The Biological Roots of Crime. Raine, p. 16
(Adrian "Let It Rains, Let It Drips" Raine)
