Saturday, December 17, 2016

118

What's The Sole Purpose Of Life? Passing On Your Genes. You're Unconsciously Driven To Pass Your Genotype On At The Expense Of People With Dissimilar Genotypes (You're Unconsciously Trying To Get More Of Your Genes Into Subsequent Generations Than Your Fellow Man Who You're Competing With). (Social And Cultural Changes In Society Are A Product Of Certain Genotypes Spreading At The Expense Of Others And Ultimately Predominating Within A Society. For Instance, Why Did The Industrial Revolution* Take Place In England At The Time It Did And Not Some Other Country? because A Certain Genotype (A Genotype Conducive To Intelligence, Industriousness, Inventiveness, Inhibition, Institutionalism, Etc.) Began To Proliferate After Several Generations (About 24 Generations) In England And Predominated (Or At Least Its Culture Predominated) By The Time Of The Onset Of The Industrial Revolution.
*I Read Your Books Gregory Clark!




Apr 18
The four laws of behavior genetics (each supported by hundreds or thousands of studies) HT

In sum, State societies create a new environment of natural selection. The Big Man goes from hero to zero (unless he is part of the tiny ruling elite). For most people, the road to success is the market economy, and such success requires a special behavioral package:
1. abandonment of violence as a means to resolve disputes and increase personal wealth;
2. ability to plan ahead and save for tomorrow
3. general trade-related skills, notably numerical and text processing
Over time, economic success would have translated into demographic success. This nascent middle class would have grown in number, with downwardly mobile descendents spreading into the lower classes and gradually replacing them. Eventually, they and their heritable characteristics would have come to dominate the entire gene pool.
During the long Malthusian era in which both genotypes struggle to earn enough to subsist (i.e. during the thousands of years leading up the Industrial Revolution), the quality-preferring genotypes have a fitness advantage. As the quality-preferring genotypes are of higher quality, they earn higher wages. These higher wages are more than enough to cover education expenses, so they are also able to have more children than the quantity-preferring genotypes.

This fitness advantage leads the quality-preferring genotypes to increase in prevalence. As this occurs, technological progress increases, as the average level of education in the population drives technological progress. This in turn increases the incentive to invest in education, creating a feedback loop between technology and education.
...

Eventually, the rate of technological progress gets high enough to induce the quantity-preferring genotypes to invest in education. When this happens, the average level of education jumps, boosting technological progress and causing the Industrial Revolution.

During this process, the population growth rate changes. Up to the time of the Industrial Revolution, population growth increases with technological progress. However, when the level of technology leaps with the Industrial Revolution, the level of education becomes so high that population growth drops dramatically. Everyone is investing more into education than raw numbers of children.

From an evolutionary perspective, the Industrial Revolution also changes the selection pressure in the model. After the Industrial Revolution, the quality-preferring genotypes invest so much into education that they have lower fertility than the quantity-preferring genotypes. They then reduce in prevalence, their fitness advantage erased.
http://jasoncollins.org/2014/09/30/the-genetic-basis-of-social-mobility/
MOST OF YOU DON'T THINK ALONG THESE LINES FOR 2 REASONS: ONE, YOU DON'T HAVE AN EVOLUTIONARY AND GENETIC OUTLOOK ON LIFE (YOU'RE "UNINFORMED BY EVOLUTIONARY LOGIC") AND, TWO, YOU'RE CAUGHT UP IN THE DAILY GRIND (TRYING TO MAKE MONEY AND MAKE KIDS), SO YOU'RE DISTRACTED FROM THIS REALITY. BUT THIS IS THE REALITY OF EVOLUTION AND MOST OF YOU GO ABOUT YOUR LIFE UNAWARE OF THIS REALITY. YOU'RE OBLIVIOUS TO YOUR GENETIC ROLE IN EVOLUTION AND SOCIETY. AND BECAUSE OF THIS I FEEL SORRY FOR YOU AND YOUR MOTHER!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1u5jupwYfk
Human Diversity - 2 of 3 - Science Breaks the Taboo
LISTEN FROM 5:35-8:02 AND 10:07-12:00 

I'LL ADD ADDITIONAL EXCERPTS FROM The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution And Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of Our Ancestors SO THAT YOU ALL GET AN IDEA OF WHAT SELECTION PRESSURES WERE OPERATING ON WHICH POPULATIONS AND HOW THESE POPULATIONS ARRIVED WHERE THEY ARE TODAY, GENETICALLY SPEAKING (HOW THESE POPULATIONS EVOLVED OVER THE PAST 10,000 YEARS).


14. But the agricultural revolution, animal domestication, and even different social systems such as manorialism *also* probably selected for different psychological profiles (perhaps for self-control, for example, or broader levels of trust).

BEGIN LISTENING AT THE 10:25 MARK. HENRY DISCUSSES GREGORY CLARK'S FINDINGS FROM THE BOOKS FAREWELL TO ALMS AND THE SON ALSO RISES, WHICH DESCRIBE THE SELECTION PRESSURES OPERATING ON THE ENGLISH POPULATION FROM ABOUT THE 1500s TO THE 1800s. 
 Retweeted
hbd chick Retweeted Joe Gough
societies create their own selection pressures. differential success in reproduction can be caused by social structures, etc.

https://www.amazon.com/INEQUALITY-Darwinian-Evolution-Disparity-Nations/dp/0997961708/

I'M TRYING TO DIRECT EVOLUTION RATHER THAN ALLOW EVOLUTION TO DIRECT MY GENES AND BY THIS I MEAN I'M OVERRIDING MY INNATE DRIVE TO PRODUCE CHILDREN WITH ANY AND EVERY FEMALE THAT TRIGGERS MY SEXUAL DESIRES (MALES ARE DESIGNED TO DO THIS) AND INSTEAD ONLY REPRODUCE WITH FEMALES WHO CAN GUIDE MY GENES INTO THE RIGHT DIRECTION (THE DIRECTION OF SUPERIOR OFFSPRING WHO CAN IMPROVE SOCIETY). I SAID I WASN'T LIKE YOU AND I DON'T THINK LIKE YOU!
HEY, DUMB MOTHERFUCKERS, I DON'T HAVE A CHILD (NEITHER A SON, NOR A DAUGHTER) AND THIS BLOG POST HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH REVOLUTION OR BEING A REVOLUTIONARY. IT HAS TO DO WITH IDEOLOGY THAT LEADS TO REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS AND A SUBSEQUENT INCREASE IN CERTAIN GENOTYPES WITHIN A POPULATION.
  1. 2h2 hours ago
    The day I can strum Lynyrd Skynyrd's Free Bird & John Mayer's Gravity effortlessly I know they'll welcome me into the gates of Heaven...
    SEE, THIS DUMB NIGGER, LIKE THE MAJORITY OF DUMB NIGGERS, CAN FOOL HIMSELF INTO BELIEVING THAT THERE'S A GOD AND A HEAVEN, BUT THIS THINKING (THIS IDEOLOGY) ONLY FACILITATES THE SPREADING OF HIS GENES BECAUSE IT GIVES HIM PURPOSE AND MEANING ("I'M GOD'S CREATION AND GOD WANTS ME TO CREATE MORE OF MYSELF (MORE OF HIS CREATION)"). WHEN HE DIES HE WILL NEITHER MEET GOD NOR GO TO HEAVEN BECAUSE NEITHER EXIST, BUT HIS IDEOLOGY WILL HAVE ALLOWED HIM TO HAVE LEFT BEHIND A LARGE PROPORTION OF HIS GENES IN THE FORM OF HIS CHILDREN and their children AND, WITH REGARD TO HIS IMPACT ON SOCIETY IN THE FORM OF HIS GENOTYPE, THAT'S ALL THAT WILL HAVE MATTERED. SEE, BECAUSE OF HIS WEALTH, STATUS, AND LOW IQ, UNEDUCATED IDEOLOGY, HIS GENOTYPE CAN SPREAD AT THE EXPENSE OF THE GENOTYPE OF SOMEONE LIKE ME WHO DOESN'T HAVE HIS WEALTH OR STATUS AND DOESN'T SHARE HIS SAME BELIEFS (IDEOLOGY) AND THIS ULTIMATELY INFLUENCES SOCIETY AND HUMAN EVOLUTION. (IF YOU HAVE DUMB NIGGERS LIKE HE OUT-BREEDING EVERYBODY SOCIETY WILL GET PROGRESSIVELY WORSE BECAUSE HIS GENOTYPE (NIGGER GENOTYPE) WILL SPREAD AND THAT GENOTYPE IS NOT CONDUCIVE TO ADVANCING SOCIETY UNLESS YOU CONSIDER A SOCIETY THAT REVOLVES AROUND SPORTS, MUSIC, SEX, AND WARFARE ADVANCED. DON'T BELIEVE ME? LOOK AT THE CHILDREN THAT BLACK ENTERTAINERS GIVE BIRTH TO? HOW MANY OF THEM DO WORK IN FIELDS THAT HELP SOCIETY PROGRESS; i.e. Science, Technology, Medicine, Economics, Etc.? HOW MANY OF THEM HAVE THE GENES TO DO WORK IN THESE FIELDS? VERY, VERY FEW.)

    NIGGAS WILL SAY "WE MOE THEN JUST ATHLETES, SINGERS, MUSICIANS, DANCERS, AND CRIMINALS. IF WE WAS GIVEN A BETTER ENVIRONMENT (IF THEM CRACCAS WASN'T OPPRESSING US WIT THEY RACISM AND DISCRIMINATION) WEBIE JUST AS INTELLIGENT, INVENTIVE, INDUSTRIOUS, INHIBITED, PRODUCTIVE, AND BENEFICIAL TO THE PROGRESS OF SOCIETY AS YOU CRACKERS." NO YOU WOULDN'T, NIGGERS, AND YOU WOULDN'T BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE THE GENES (GENOTYPE) TO BE AS INTELLIGENT, INVENTIVE (TECHNOLOGICALLY AND ECONOMICALLY), INHIBITED, INDUSTRIOUS, PRODUCTIVE, AND BENEFICIAL TO THE PROGRESS OF SOCIETY AS WHITES. AND THIS IS BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE THE GENES (THE GENOTYPE) TO CREATE THESE PHENOTYPIC TRAITS (THE GENES THAT CREATE THE NEUROLOGY, PHYSIOLOGY, AND PSYCHOLOGY OF THESE PERSONALITY AND BEHAVIORAL TRAITS ARE LACKING AMONG YOU NIGGERS OR ARE AT LEAST IN LOW FREQUENCY AMONG YOU NIGGERS). I'LL EXCERPT A PASSAGE FROM A BOOK I'M WRITING ON RACE DIFFERENCES IN PERSONALITY TO PROVE THIS!



    Over a decade ago I began my research into how IQ matters for nations. I soon found that the strong link between average IQ and national productivity couldn’t be explained with just the conventional finding that IQ predicts higher wages. IQ apparently mattered far more for nations than for individuals. In my early work, I estimated that IQ mattered about six times more for nations than for individuals: your nation’s IQ mattered so much more than your own. That puzzle, that paradox of IQ, is what set me on my intellectual journey. - See more at: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2015/11/statestupidity.html#sthash.QzqWo0JN.dpuf
    Over a decade ago I began my research into how IQ matters for nations. I soon found that the strong link between average IQ and national productivity couldn’t be explained with just the conventional finding that IQ predicts higher wages. IQ apparently mattered far more for nations than for individuals. In my early work, I estimated that IQ mattered about six times more for nations than for individuals: your nation’s IQ mattered so much more than your own. That puzzle, that paradox of IQ, is what set me on my intellectual journey. …
    I’ll lay out five major channels for how IQ can pay off more for nations than for you as an individual:
    1. High-scoring people tend to save more, and some of that savings stays in their home country. More savings mean more machines, more computers, more technology to work with, which helps make everyone in the nation more productive.
    2. High-scoring groups tend to be more cooperative. And cooperation is a key ingredient for building higher-quality governments and more productive businesses.
    3. High-scoring groups are more likely to support market-oriented policies, a key to national prosperity. People who do well on standardized tests also tend to be better at remembering information, and informed voters are an important ingredient for good government.
    4. High-scoring groups will tend to be more successful at using highly productive team-based technology. With these “weakest link” technologies, one misstep can destroy the product’s value, so getting high-quality workers together is crucial. Think about computer chips, summer blockbuster films, cooperative mega-mergers.
    5. The human tendency to conform, at least a little, creates a fifth channel that multiplies the effect of the other four: the imitation channel, the peer effect channel. Even a small tendency to conform, to act just a little bit like those around us, too try to fit in, tends to quietly shape our behavior. If you have cooperative, patient, well-informed neighbors, that probably makes you a bit more cooperative, patient, and well-informed.
    - See more at: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2015/11/statestupidity.html#sthash.QzqWo0JN.dpuf
    Over a decade ago I began my research into how IQ matters for nations. I soon found that the strong link between average IQ and national productivity couldn’t be explained with just the conventional finding that IQ predicts higher wages. IQ apparently mattered far more for nations than for individuals. In my early work, I estimated that IQ mattered about six times more for nations than for individuals: your nation’s IQ mattered so much more than your own. That puzzle, that paradox of IQ, is what set me on my intellectual journey. …
    I’ll lay out five major channels for how IQ can pay off more for nations than for you as an individual:
    1. High-scoring people tend to save more, and some of that savings stays in their home country. More savings mean more machines, more computers, more technology to work with, which helps make everyone in the nation more productive.
    2. High-scoring groups tend to be more cooperative. And cooperation is a key ingredient for building higher-quality governments and more productive businesses.
    3. High-scoring groups are more likely to support market-oriented policies, a key to national prosperity. People who do well on standardized tests also tend to be better at remembering information, and informed voters are an important ingredient for good government.
    4. High-scoring groups will tend to be more successful at using highly productive team-based technology. With these “weakest link” technologies, one misstep can destroy the product’s value, so getting high-quality workers together is crucial. Think about computer chips, summer blockbuster films, cooperative mega-mergers.
    5. The human tendency to conform, at least a little, creates a fifth channel that multiplies the effect of the other four: the imitation channel, the peer effect channel. Even a small tendency to conform, to act just a little bit like those around us, too try to fit in, tends to quietly shape our behavior. If you have cooperative, patient, well-informed neighbors, that probably makes you a bit more cooperative, patient, and well-informed.
    - See more at: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2015/11/statestupidity.html#sthash.F39O48RE.dpuf
     https://ricochet.com/review-hive-mind-nations-iq-matters-much/
    READ ABOUT THE INCREASE IN PRODUCTIVITY AND CIVILITY WHEN YOU HAVE A POPULATION OF HIGHER IQ PEOPLE.
     http://www.overcomingbias.com/2015/11/statestupidity.html
    READ ABOUT THE 5 BENEFITS OF HAVING HIGHER IQ PEOPLE IN A POPULATION.
    http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/11/hive-mind.html
    I’ll lay out five major channels for how IQ can pay off more for nations than for you as an individual: - See more at: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2015/11/statestupidity.html#sthash.QzqWo0JN.dpuf
    READ THE GOD DAM BOOK WHILE YOU'RE IN YOUR POPULATION 50. THEN TIE IT INTO WHAT I'M WRITING ABOUT NIGGER GENES AND IQ!
Darwin...wasn't too worried about this doctrine spreading. However compelling the logic seemed to a thoughtful scientific materialist, most people aren't thoughtful scientific materialists. "This view will not do harm, because no one can be really fully convinced of its truth, except man who has thought very much..." In other words: So long as this knowledge is confined to a few English gentlemen, and doesn't infect the masses, everything will be alright. (The Moral Animal)








https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2014/03/31/the-son-becomes-the-father/
The success of the clan over time is then dictated by its evolutionary fitness and the degree of assortative mating.
Assortative mating is key to perpetuating this process. The more assortative mating there is, the more each clan (which, by the way, is a fitting term in this instance, even for NW European societies, where there are no “clans” in HBD Chick‘s sense) retains the genes for success (or failure) and the slower the regression to mean. Non-assortative mating is the hole through which genes leak out over time, hastening regression and familial turn-over throughout the ages.
So what of these genetic traits that are germane to success? What are they? IQ is definitely one of them, and perhaps the single most important. But there are others, physical health surely, attractiveness likely, certain personality traits, such as conscientiousness, as well as not so admirable traits, such as those on the Dark Triad(Tetrad) (i.e., narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, sadism), especially Machiavellianism. Maybe we could describe an “m” (moxie) factor (analogous to the g factor) that underlies them all (and maybe this gives credence to the idea that there is a “general factor of personality”). Of course, as we know, a number of these traits (e.g., conscientiousness, attractiveness, health) are positively correlated with IQ, so there’s that.
https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2014/04/15/more-behavioral-genetic-facts/

  https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2019/11/12/how-the-pursuit-of-better-education-career-opportunities-may-be-creating-regional-genetic-inequalities/?mc_cid=4309db62bb&mc_eid=e2d6a0f33b

  Retweeted
 Jul 19
Happy to announce that I'm writing a book for : "The Genetic Lottery," a book on the genetics of social inequality that will argue that genetic research can help create a more just and equal society.
https://twitter.com/kph3k/status/1019970364292632576
https://twitter.com/StuartJRitchie/status/1019973051398721536


https://twitter.com/Steve_Sailer/status/1021617432924811266
Economic historian Gregory Clark, author of "A Farewell to Alms" and "The Son Also Rises," has a new book coming out that is entitled, as I predicted in 2014, "For Whom the Bell Curve Tolls:"

  Retweeted
 Jul 14
Greg Clark on differing reproduction rates by occupational status in England. To be summarised in forthcoming book 'For Whom The Bell Curve Tolls'

https://www.amazon.com/Farewell-Alms-Economic-History-Princeton/dp/0691141282
https://www.amazon.com/Son-Also-Rises-Surnames-Princeton/dp/0691162549
The Social Class You Were Born Into Is The Social Class You'll Likely Remain In Throughout Your Life Unless You Inherit A Higher IQ Than Your Parents Or Some Other Unique, Innate Attribute That Allows You To Gain Status And Wealth In Society And Thus Move Up In Social Class (Think: Professional Athlete). So, For The Most Part, Most College Graduates (Regardless Of What Type Of Degree(s) They Get) Won't Ascend Much Higher In Socioeconomic Status Than Their Parents. Why? because Your Genes Are Mostly Responsible For Your Success Or Lack Of Success And Since Genes Between Parents And Children Don't Differ Too Greatly Outcomes In Life Between Parents And Children Don't Differ Too Greatly. So, To Sum It Up, Blacks And Browns, You're Pretty Much Stuck In The Social And Economic Class That You Were Born In! 

https://twitter.com/primalpoly/status/1016761334258470912
Replying to 
Again and again, conscientiousness and general intelligence turn up as the two big predictors of success in every domain of life. It's almost as if 'hard work' and 'talent' still matter....

Where did  Clark and his students see this this pattern of slow long-term social mobility?
Everywhere they looked. England, Sweden, Japan, Korea, China, Chile.  In England, Norman surnames are still 25% over-represented at Oxford and Cambridge, but then it’s only been 947 years. The Japanese upper class is something like half Samurai (5% of the population when they lost their special privileges, 143 years ag0).
...
It turns out that you can predict a kid’s social status better if you take into account the grandparents as well as the parents – and the nieces/nephews, cousins, etc. Which means that you’re estimating the breeding value for moxie – which means that Clark needs to read Falconer right now. I’d guess that taking into account grandparents that the kids never even met, ones that died before their birth, will improve prediction.  Let the sociologists chew on that.
...
If culture was the driver, a group could just adopt a different culture (it happens) and decide to be the new upper class by doing all that shit Amy Chua pushes, or possibly by playing cricket. I don’t believe that this ever actually occurs.  Although with genetic engineering on the horizon,  it may be possible.  Of course that would be cheating.
It is hard to change these patterns very much. Universal public education, fluoridation, democracy, haven’t made much difference.  I do think that shooting enough people would. Or a massive application of droit de seigneur, or its opposite.
Clark finds that windfalls don’t make much difference in the long run. Back in 1830, they kicked the Cherokee out of Georgia and distributed the land by lottery in 1832. One-fifth of the adult male white Georgians were winners, with a value of something like $150,000 in 2014 dollars.  But by 1880, their descendants were no more literate, their occupational status no higher.  Sounds like modern lottery winners, or NBA players, yes?  The major exception must be extreme poverty: a windfall that keeps you from starving to death must have long-range effects on your descendants.
If moxie is genetic, most economists must be wrong about human capital formation.   Having fewer kids and spending more money on their education has only a modest effect: this must be the case, given slow long-run social mobility. It seems that social status is transmitted within families largely independently of the resources available to parents. Which is why Ashkenazi Jews could show up at Ellis Island flat broke, with no English, and have so many kids in the Ivy League by the 1920s that they imposed quotas.  I’ve never understood why economists ever believed in this.

  1.  Jul 14
    Greg Clark Genetics determines social status
https://twitter.com/TheEconomist/status/1109892936970522629
Research suggests that the simplest way to become extremely rich is by being born to the right parents

THE GENES YOU INHERITED FROM YOUR PARENTS ARE MOSTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR SUCCESS OR LACK OF SUCCESS IN LIFE. FURTHER, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC INTERVENTIONS (PROGRAMS) WON'T HAVE MUCH OF AN IMPACT ON YOU OR YOUR DESCENDANTS SUCCESS IN LIFE IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE GENES THAT ALLOW YOU TO MAKE THE MOST OF THOSE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC PROGRAMS! IN OTHER WORDS, YOUR GENES ARE MOSTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR SUCCESS IN LIFE! DID I GET THAT RIGHT, GREGORY?

"I SWEAR TO G0D I HATE BUMS!" - SILKY SLIM THA MOTHAFUCCIN' P MANE!

Jul 19
Interestingly, the cultural explanations come late in the argument, suggesting that wealth accumulation needs to be taught to African Americans. However, African ete immigrants to UK do not need that tuition.
"Middle Finger 2 Tha Bums" - Cuete 2x
The prevailing progressive narrative also gives short shrift to the history of immigrant groups succeeding in the face of racist hostility and without help from the government. Baradaran, for instance, criticizes the “pervasive myth that immigrant success was based purely on individual work ethic.” To the contrary, she claims, “most immigrants’ bootstraps had been provided to them by the government.”13
But history tells a different story. Starting with the California Alien Land Law of 1913, fourteen states passed laws preventing Japanese-American peasant farmers from owning land and property. These laws existed until 1952, when the Supreme Court ruled them unconstitutional. Add to this the internment of 120,000 Japanese-Americans during World War II, and it’s fair to say that the Japanese were given no bootstraps in America. Nevertheless, by 1970 census data showed Japanese-Americans out-earning Anglo-Americans, Irish-Americans, German-Americans, Italian-Americans, and Polish-Americans.14 For Asian-Americans on the whole, an analysis of wealth data from 1989 to 2013 predicted that their “median wealth soon will surpass the white median level.” If wealth differences were largely explained by America’s history of favoring certain groups over others, then it would be hard to explain why Asian-Americans, who were never favored, are on track to become wealthier than whites.
...
When all the facts are included, the story changes: wealth is not handed from the top down. It is produced by a bottom-up process involving millions of individuals bringing their skills, habits, and knowledge—attributes which vary from group to group—to bear on valuable tasks.
...
Conspicuous by its absence in the progressive account of the racial wealth gap is any active role for blacks themselves. Reading Baradaran, Rothstein, and Coates, one gets the impression that there is nothing blacks could do to improve their lot—outside of asking the government for radical policy solutions. But there are things that blacks can do. Indeed, there are certain elements of black American culture that, if changed, would allow blacks to amass wealth to a degree that no government policy would be likely to match.
No element of culture harms black wealth accrual more directly than spending patterns. Nielsen, one of the world’s leading market research firms, keeps extensive data on American consumer behavior, broken down demographically. A 2017 Nielsen report found that, compared to white women, black women were 14 percent more likely to own a luxury vehicle, 16 percent more likely to purchase costume jewelry, and 9 percent more likely to purchase fine jewelry. A similar Nielsen report from 2013 found that, while only 62 percent of all Americans owned a smartphone, 71 percent of blacks owned one. Moreover, all of these spending differences were unconditional on wealth and income.
To what extent do poor spending habits explain the persistence of the wealth gap? Economists at the University of Chicago and the University of Pennsylvania asked this question after analyzing 16 years of nationally representative data from the Consumer Expenditure Survey. Consistent with the Nielsen data, they found that blacks with comparable incomes to whites spent 17 percent less on education, and 32 percent more (an extra $2300 per year in 2005 dollars) on ‘visible goods’—defined as cars, jewelry, and clothes. What’s more, “after controlling for visible spending,” they concluded that the “wealth gap between Blacks and Whites, conditional on permanent income, declines by 50 percent.” To be clear, that 50 percent figure doesn’t pertain to the total wealth gap, but to the proportion of the gap that remains after income is taken into account—which was 40 percent. The upshot: the fact that blacks spent more on cars, jewelry, and clothes explained fully 20 percent of the total racial wealth gap.
...
The dynamic underlying the Parable of the Pedestrian scales up to entire communities. It is no longer primarily racism that holds blacks back, but a set of cultural elements—some acquired from white southerners,18 some a consequence of historical racism,19 others a consequence of the political upheavals of the 1960s,20 and some which are mysterious in origin—that are ill-suited for success in a modern information economy. Thus, unfair as it may seem, blacks can now do more for themselves than either whites or the government can do for them.
Image result for evolutionary theory

https://www.amazon.com/Unequal-Chances-Background-Economic-Success/dp/0691119309/
  1. 4h4 hours ago
    3. Evolution says no such thing. Evolution has no morality or foresight. 

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 Raines, Let It Drips" Raine)

  1. "Their customs and manner of treating one another show a primitive generosity which is truly delightful and which is often a reproach to our own people. Whatever one has, they all have. Money, food, clothes, they share with one another, even to the last piece of tobacco to put in their pipes. I once heard old 'Mr. Bingham' [a Hawaiian man] say with the highest indignation to a yankee trader who was trying to persuade him to keep his money to himself: 'No! We no all 'e same a you! Suppose one got money, all got money; you - suppose one got money, lock him up in chest; no good. Kanaka all 'e same one.' This principle they carry so far that none of them will eat anything in sight of the others without offering it all around. I have seen one of them break a biscuit which had been given him, in five parts, at a time when I knew he was on a very short allowance, as there was but little to eat on the beach." - Richard Henry Dana, c. 1859, quoted in Ed Towse, Some Hawaiians Abroad, Papers of the Hawaiian Historical Society (11, 1904) 
  2. https://www.amazon.com/Then-There-Were-Martha-Noyes/dp/1573061557/

  4. https://x.com/robkhenderson/status/1333129348589740040
Rob Henderson
@robkhenderson
"the family structure that people in the U.S. take for granted is actually highly peculiar...many values liberals tend to hold dear—autonomy, egalitarianism, individuality—flowed from establishing the nuclear family as the core social unit" arcdigital.media/the-traditiona
  1. Ancestral Native Hawaiians At The Time Of European Conquest And Colonization Weren't Autonomous, Egalitarian, Or Individualistic Nor Was The Nuclear Family The Core Social Unit.  

  3.  The European Influenced Economic And Social System (Political, Legal, Familial, Etc.) Imposed On Full-Blooded Native Hawaiians During The 1800s Forced Them To Adapt To Economic, Social, And Cultural Institutions That They Were Not Genetically Suited For And These Foreign Institutions Took A Toll On Them Socially, Emotionally, Economically, And Reproductively. (They Couldn't Survive And Reproduce Under These Conditions. Read The Excerpts From The Links Below To Understand Why!)   
    Full-Blooded Native Hawaiians At The Time Of The European Conquest Of Their Islands Were Unfamiliar With Individualism And The Concept Of Money, So The Idea Of Making Money For Oneself, Saving Money For Oneself, And Being Avaricious (Hoarding Money Or Goods For Themselves) Was Completely Foreign To Them And Not Part Of Their Genetic Makeup. There's A Quote By A Full-Blooded Native Hawaiian Man In Then There Were None That Epitomizes My Last Sentence. I'll Try To Find It. It Had To Do With A European Missionary Asking A Full-Blooded Hawaiian In The 1800s Why He Wasn't Keeping His Money For Himself And The Full-Blooded Hawaiian Thought The Question Was Absurd!
  4. https://evolution-institute.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/edu-publication-web.pdf Read 16 And 22!! I Like David Geary's Hypothesis More. Some Races Aren't Genetically Adapted To Quickly And Fully Grasp Secondary Knowledge (Reading, Writing, And Arithmetic). Why? because Some Races Didn't Come From Environments That Evolved A Culture That Depended On This Form Of Secondary Knowledge And Hence Selected For The Genes And Neural Wiring To Quickly And Fully Grasp This Form Of Secondary Knowledge. And Why Didn't These Races Evolve The Genes And Neural Wiring? because There Was No Selection Pressure In The Environments From Which These Races Evolved Selecting For The Genes And Neural Wiring To Read, Write, And Arithmetic! (I Likes To Repeat Myself!) This Is Why Some Races (Blacks And Browns) Lag Behind Others When It Comes To Reading, Writing, And Arithmetic As Well As Why Some Races Are Underrepresented In Academia And Achieve Less Success In Academia (How Many Mexican Senior Research Associates Are There? How Many Polynesian (Tongan Or Samoan Or Maori) Professors Are There? How Many Black Nobel Prize Winners Are There? https://www.salk.edu/science/directory/faculty/ What Races Do You See Here? Do You See Mexicans Or Samoans Or Blacks?)! 
    The Bottom Line Is That Secondary Knowledge Takes Teachers And Time To Absorb And Some Races (Blacks And Browns) Need More Teachers And More Time To Absorb That Knowledge! Why? Because These Races Didn't Come From Cultures That Heavily Relied On The Forms Of Secondary Knowledge That Are Valued In Western Civilizations! Think Of Western Europeans And East Asians. They Came From Agricultural Based Cultures And Thus Depended Heavily On Secondary Knowledge In The Form Of  Reading, Writing, And Arithmetic To Survive (Mathematics In Particular). Accordingly, They Evolved The Culture And Genes To Quickly Acquire Secondary Knowledge (Reading, Writing, Arithmetic) Which Gives Them An Advantage In Today's World. (Blacks And Browns Came From Cultures That Depended More On Unconscious, Instinctive Behavior (Primary Knowledge) To Accomplish The Goals Of Sex And Survival. So In Today's Modern Environment Where Secondary Knowledge Is Crucial For Economic And Social Success They Have Less Success.) 
    Reading, Writing, And Arithmetic Were Never Needed In Polynesia's Evolutionary Past (All You Needed To Know How To Do In Ancient Polynesia Was Find Food, Fight, And Fuck! Which Are All Instinctive Skills!). So There Was Never A Selection Pressure In That Environment To Develop A Culture That Implemented This Form Of Secondary Knowledge And Thus Selected For The Genes That Correlate With Success In Regard To Reading, Writing, And Arithmetic. This Is Why Polynesians, Like Blacks And Other Brown Populations, Struggle In School!
  5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkfgFszu3Aw
  6. Fucc School
  7. Religious community building comes naturally to us. In fact, given how commonly religion is pitted against science, it is good to remember the tremendous advantage religion enjoys. Science is an artificial, contrived achievement, whereas religion comes as easily to us as walking or breathing. This has been pointed out by many authors, from the American primatologist Barbara King, who in Evolving God relates the drive to religion to our desire to belong, to the French anthropologist Pascal Boyer, who views religion as an intuitive capacity:
  1. Scientific research and theorizing has appeared only in very few human societies...The results of scientific research may be well-known, but the whole intellectual style that is required to achieve them is really difficult to acquire. By contrast, religious representations have appeared in all human groups that we know, they are easily acquired, they are maintained effortlessly and they seem accessible to all members of a group, regardless of intelligence or training. As Robert McCauley points out,...religious representations are highly natural to human beings, while science is quite clearly unnatural. That is, the former goes with the grain of our evolved intuitions, while the latter requires that we suspend, or even contradict most of our common ways of thinking.
    Contrast the ease with which children adopt religion with the long and laborious road young people travel to achieve a Ph.D. around the age of thirty. McCauley, a philosopher colleague of mine at Emory, told me that if he had to choose which of the two would survive if society collapsed, he'd put his money on religion rather than science: "Religion overwhelmingly depends upon what I'm calling natural cognition, thinking that is automatic, that is not conscious for the most part." McCauley contrasts this with science, which is "conscious, usually in the form of language. It's slow, it's deliberative."


  3. hbd chick Retweeted Joe Gough
    societies create their own selection pressures. differential success in reproduction can be caused by social structures, etc.






  4. *The Genes For Foresight, Low Time Preference, Low Impulsivity, Avariciousness, A Higher IQ, Literacy, Etc. Allowed Western And Northern Europeans To Develop Socially, Politically, And Economically Dominant Countries That Colonized The Majority Of The World And Then Imposed Their Social, Political, Economic, Etc. Systems On These Colonized Countries.
Posted by at