Nah, a 1% compromise repeated 100 times only loses you slightly less than 2/3 of everything. (Dialectic, since we’re among friends here)

Exactly, but thank you anyway for stepping intentionally into the trap laid to illustrate the difference between rhetoric and dialectic, and their relative effectiveness. Again, the purpose of all this is to help dialectic speakers understand what rhetoric is and how it can be effectively used (and is effectively used against them).

First, from an earlier comment:
“2) The best rhetoric is both a) emotionally powerful and b) points towards the truth.”

The truth here is that “small compromises repeated often enough add up to major losses.”

But what packs the more emotional punch?

You will lose “slightly less than 2/3 of everything!”
– or –
You will end up losing everything!

Obviously the latter, and that emotion, once created, carries over to latter argument.

Again, first create the emotion (you will lose everything!) that points toward a general truth (you will lose a lot!), and then let the specific, factual truth (you may not lose as much as initially claimed, but you will still lose a lot!) confirm the emotion.

Here is another example of a rhetorical claim where disproving the claim simply reinforced the rhetorical effect:

Remember when Trump said during the 2016 campaign that he was worth $10 billion? Critics on both the left and right quickly pounced on that* and pointed out that Trump was actually only worth about $3-6 billion, crowing long and loudly that this proved Trump was a lying liar who lied and could not be trusted about anything.

But what was the actual effect?

Normal people who heard the $10 billion claim knew that Trump was not claiming that he was actually worth exactly $10 billion. They understood he was simply saying that he was rich and successful, and thus could help make America rich and successful. (MAGA!) Was he exaggerating greatly? Of course! It’s Trump, after all.

So when the critics pointed out that Trump was actually worth about $3-6 billion, all they did was reinforce the image that Trump is rich and successful, and made themselves look stupid in the process.

“Oh, you mean he’s only worth $3-6 billion? Well then, he’s obviously a loser!”

(*: Critics on both the left and right quickly pounced on that… like bait! Trump is a master of this. He will make a rhetorical claim that looks like an easy opening for critics to disprove, but is actually a swamp that pulls them in and helps prove his point while making them look stupid.)

A 1% compromise repeated 100 times loses you everything

Nah, a 1% compromise repeated 100 times only loses you slightly less than 2/3 of everything. (Dialectic, since we’re among friends here)

But nevah, evah, defensively deny their rhetorical “point.�

See also “No, I’m not a [so-called] ‘racist’ ”

Amirite?

Definitely on the right track.

1. Beat them to the punch and say, “We built it.�

Yes! The substitution of “you (individual)” to “we” is exactly right, and the emotional argument can be carried further in any number of ways:
– We / My people / My ancestors / My culture built it!
– They / Their people didn’t build it! They have no right/rightful claim to it!
– They have no right to take/destroy our nation / history / birthright / cultural equity!

Establish yourself as rightful owner and them as attempted invaders and thieves.

Likewise, when someone demands reparations for whatever injustice, reject the claim and demand royalties (including retroactive) for the use of western civilization and its benefits. And demand that they stop appropriating your (western) culture.

2. Smirk, agree, and amplify their claim, then ask, “So what?

Agree and amplify requires that you hold frame no matter what, which can be difficult depending on the person and situation. I would just say “So what?” “I don’t care” etc. However, be prepared for potential shouting and/or a knockdown fight.

3. Smirk, agree, and amplify their claim, then draw them into specifics.

This takes both oratory skill and quick thinking, because going into specific arguments is essentially playing into their game. Drawing a person into specifics is a way to get them to compromise or make some small admission that cedes ground, even if only a tiny, tiny bit. A 1% compromise repeated 100 times loses you everything. (Hi, conserve-nothing cuckservatives!) Best to stand firm from the start.

4. Hang them from the nearest lamp post.

We are not there yet, and hopefully won’t get there, but if the other side decides to take things hot, well, those are the new rules of the game, and he who plays the new game by the old rules will lose. Nuff said.

But nevah, evah, defensively deny their rhetorical “point.�

Yes, playing defense and trying to justify your position frames them as the accusing authority and you as the appeaser. Attack back. Attack, attack, attack. The left are used to attacking and mob tactics, but are almost never put on the defense themselves, so they are a mile wide and an inch deep. Attack back with the most emotionally painful rhetoric available to drive them from the battlefield.

The dialectic approaches truth, while rhetoric appeals to emotion. Each has its place.

This is not exactly true.
1) It is possible to build a logically solid (dialectical) but false argument. See: lawyers
2) The best rhetoric is both a) emotionally powerful and b) points towards the truth.

Each does have it’s place, but dialectic is only useful with another honest dialectic speaker, and then only as long as they keep speaking dialectic.

Keep. Using. Dialectic. The Unz Review facilitates it better than any other publication this layman can find.

And yet how often do articles here weave some rhetoric into their dialectic arguments?
How often do the comments devolve into rhetoric?
I’ve seen a lot of both.

In the end, rhetoric that points towards a truth is the most powerful and universally useful.

The dialectic approaches truth, while rhetoric appeals to emotion. Each has its place.

Keep. Using. Dialectic. The Unz Review facilitates it better than any other publication this layman can find.

The rhetorical inference is exactly the same as Obama’s “You didn’t build that.�

So, depending on circumstances, the proper response is to:

1. Beat them to the punch and say, “We built it.”
2. Smirk, agree, and amplify their claim, then ask, “So what?”
3. Smirk, agree, and amplify their claim, then draw them into specifics.
4. Hang them from the nearest lamp post.

But nevah, evah, defensively deny their rhetorical “point.”

Amirite? Or can you offer advice here, too?

Thanks.

You are trying to argue against rhetoric using dialectic. That is a good way to lose the argument. Why? Because you are not refuting the point – you are only quibbling details (numbers). All they have to do is handwave your dialectic, say the gist of the argument stands, and call you stupid or privileged or “shut up white man� or whatever else they want to shut you down.

Stop. Trying. To. Argue. Using. Dialectic.

I’ve sensed this for decades, but never gave it thought. Your reasoning is expressed so well and fits nicely with my own Keep It Simple Stupid (KISS) approach. Thank you very much!

The (((two percent))) are fifty percent of the one percent.

Too clever by half. It lacks any emotional punch.

Remember, facts don’t change minds – not even inconvenient facts. Discomfort in the form of cognitive dissonance and emotional pain is what ultimately forces the vast majority of people to abandon arguments and/or change their minds.

For example:
When someone starts ranting about the 1% or accusing you of being part of the 1%, look straight at them with a totally serious “are-you-really-saying-that!?” look on your face and ask:

“Why do you hate Jews?”

And then don’t back down. Refuse to entertain any other point. Just keep dragging them back, hammering them with specific (((examples*))) and asking “Why do you hate Jews?”

Can you see the the emotional jujutsu (rhetoric) against both sides?

Not only does this shift the left’s target to (((the 1%))), forcing them to either deny and drop the argument or actually start targeting (((them))), but at the same time it also reminds every conservative/cuckservative listening who really rules over them.

(*: Zuckerberg, etc. -Have a ready list)

Rhetoric, dialectic, it’s all so tiresome.

OK, how about this instead:

The (((two percent))) are fifty percent of the one percent.

The problem is, they are.

Yes, exactly, which is why the West is gradually being lost.

When someone comes to take your stuff, there are only two outcomes: They take it, or they don’t.

Giving a little to buy peace and warm and fuzzy feelings doesn’t work, because they just keep demanding more and more. That’s the problem with paying the Danegeld – the Dane refuses to stay bought.

if you have something pity like “that’s more than 1%� sometimes it works.

No, it doesn’t. Like many dialectic speakers, you are confusing the words for the meaning.

When the left says “the 1%” they do not mean a specific percentage. The term is used to refer to an “undeservedly privileged” group, and the actual percentage – 0.99%, 1.01%, 5%, etc. – does not matter. The rhetorical inference is exactly the same as Obama’s “You didn’t build that.” What they are saying is that the target group of people are beneficiaries of privilege that they did not earn themselves, and thus must apologize profusely and spread the wealth.

Again, 1% or 5% doesn’t matter. All that matters is that the target group prostrate themselves and fork over the riches to their new masters. From that viewpoint, can you see why quibbling percentages not only doesn’t matter, but actually makes the quibbler look not only stupid, but tone-deaf? (“You are so steeped in privilege that you can’t even understand how privileged and wrong you are!”)

Again, Stop. Trying. To. Argue. Using. Dialectic.

The problem is, they are.

Isn’t the “1%� rhetoric about wealth concentration, not mere numerical population representation?

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’ ‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’ ‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

Isn’t the “1%� rhetoric about wealth concentration, not mere numerical population representation?

I always thought the 1% argument was about the rich, with implicit whiteness added because white man bad.

So on that measure, the wealth, at least in terms of per capita income, however you cut it, would place the USA close enough for climate change grenades.

We’ve got to be somewhere in the top 10. Places like Monaco and Luxembourg at the top and yuge populations at the bottom like Nigeria, Bangladesh, India, Kenya, Congo, Etc..

Maybe we can’t be the 1% mathematically, but the rhetoric is sound.

There are billions of people living on a handful of dollars per day.

So the lefties who yap on about equality and fairness by demonizing the 1% of wealth concentration here, have a problem if that argument is extrapolated globally; a matter of numerator/denominator.

While 1% is still the wrong number, the implications persist even if that number is 15%.

Look how quickly our own entitled people go after the “rich�, whatever that means.

You may not feel like the rich 1%, but in the eyes of the invader running the taco cart or the purple haired landwhale drawing her gov’t check you are; they are gonna round down on you.

To most of the world we are rich. So we should give them shit. Or they should be able to come here and get some. Either way, turning the 1% argument back on the commies based on the global metrics os valid.

IOW, to what standard of wealth do we solve in our quest for equality and fairness? Huh Bernie? How does the elimination of racist borders factor into that?

It’s a good rhetorical argument for the real global elite, because it shifts attention away from them and onto Murican wypipo, who are the designated scapegoat.

Whatever its rhetorical value, it’s wildly untrue, of course.

Lol, so what?

“Truth” is a social construct.

Everyone in the USA does not attend Davos, Bilderberg, CFR, Bohemian Grove, Rothschild’s masked balls, etc.

There is being one percent of a population, then there is being the 0.001 percent that owns 99% of global wealth.

By and large you are correct, but if you have something pity like “that’s more than 1%” sometimes it works.

You are trying to argue against rhetoric using dialectic. That is a good way to lose the argument. Why? Because you are not refuting the point – you are only quibbling details (numbers). All they have to do is handwave your dialectic, say the gist of the argument stands, and call you stupid or privileged or “shut up white man” or whatever else they want to shut you down.

Stop. Trying. To. Argue. Using. Dialectic.

“Molon Labe”

And then follow through.

Actually 320.000.000 > 1 % of 7.000.000.000.

Sometimes arguments are so easy to win.

Actually true. You need to qualify White American male. That’s who they have in mind, right?

Nassim Taleb is full of shyte , Most of the islamic scholars were actually of Arab descent :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pre-modern_Arab_scientists_and_scholars
Alhazen , Alkindi , Averroes were all arabs so screw yourself zionist trash

The excluded middle is not a fallacy, it’s a theorem of standard logics. You mean black or white/false dilemma fallacy. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/eitheror.html

Is the mean IQ for all of China really 105? Does that include the rural peasants?

Good argument there. All done here.

Sorry to take advantage of this thread to come back late with a question that was just prompted by considering whether some very smart and successful Jewish friends of mine were “clannish”.

Einstein had no problem with “tribe” and “tribal” when referring to Jews so I am tempted to assume that you would agree that Jews are notably clannish. How does that fit in with your thesis about the consequences of North Western Europeans shedding their clannishness and the undeniable Jewish individual achievements in science, banking, mathematics, literature and scholarship of every kind?

It wasn’t the Arabs making those discoveries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alhazen

Not arabs eh?

Just because black people are the only group to not really invent anything (except for the NAACP and dumping ones child on others for care) doesn’t mean you have to group the rest.

Excellent! I being a clannish Indian who has lived in Western Europe for years think this piece is one of the most brilliant and comprehensive works ever done on HBD .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOJGh267dEg

Video Link

In this fantastic Japanese film has some scenes seem to show a bit of Japanese theater or opera. Eastern classical music without any Western influence, that is, that are unique in the region can be very beautiful, but can also be much more so long ( for example, when we hear a single lone voice singing the same words for 3.4 minutes) and less condensed into different rythms. Of course it is an anecdotal observation but the music as well as culture or even more precise than the same, it may express the average personality that predominates in a particular region, that the ancient anthropologists termed racial character.

I remember a Chinese immigrant performing in the ” Poland Got Talent ” and showing a bit of traditional Chinese music. I also remember contained laughing in the audience. Just tradition or oriental complacency and calm make them more reciprocal to this type of music that is very particular and need to be concentrated so it can be appreciated *

Western operas are/seems to be almost always happier than the eastern operas. Only anecdotal observations.

Hey Jayman,

Another random thought: I’m not sure how familiar you are with the research into extrinsic vs. intrinsic motivation, or if you even take it seriously, but it seems Western Europeans have much more of the latter compared to other groups. Would you agree this is part of the suite of traits associated with guilt culture?

No one’s commenting anymore?

Anyhow, not all heavy metallers are cousins of the Swedes. Check out this guy (who I’ve seen live several times):

Video Link

What seems to be missed here is the additive power of “accidents” / “self-selection” / different cultural norms AND genetic drift over time caused by these factors. It’s not genetics OR culture – surely can both function together, amplifying each others’ effects. The issue is we are only seeing half the story in mainstream discourse (Jayman / hbdchick etc excluded). This means WEIRD societies keep coming up with stupid ideas (liberal democracy in Iraq people, double quick, snap snap etc) because we are wilfully ignoring the genetic aspects of human behaviour that can’t be totally altered overnight.

Absolutely right.

http://beyondvictoriana.com/2011/01/21/africans-in-ancient-china-vice-versa-part-3-zheng-hes-star-fleet-guest-blog-by-eccentric-yoruba/

Interestingly, if you try to maximize IQ+conservatism you wind up in the Eastern European quadrant. Maybe that’s part of the reason neoreactionaries love Russia?

Abotu null hypothesis: you are right, except for one thing: we would disagree what is a null hypothesis. For me (and I presume for Jayman too) the null hypothesis is taht if you have two different regions, then there can be genetical differences between them, including perhaps differences resulting in a differences in distribution of different psychological trait. This is a unll hypothesis for me, because it is so obviously consistent with both the real world observation, and is logically resulting from my understanding of evolution and genetics. My null hypothesis is that ANY human populations will differ (even neighbouring villages) as long as there is any barrier (social, geographical) which prevents those populations from constant interbreeding. The claim that South and North Koreans are the same is – for me – the claim so outlandish, so it would require a really convincing proof. For me, the burden of proof is on you.

The fact that those tiny countries could colonise vast areas of the world is as impressive achievement as later contributions to the science, because this fact was enabled by combination of technical advantages, psychological predispositions (and, last but not least, pure luck). Building sea-worthy ship is comparable to any scientific achievement.

Star Trek: The Motion Picture is the best of the ST films. There, I said it.

Where do bloggers come from?

”Western Europeans, for all their genius in science”

It is a coletivization of individual specific profiles. Average western european are not super bright because they are average as well happen in all group populations.

People who think about ideas tend to be different than people who prefer to think about other(/himself) people.

We are a mix between rational and instinctive while this people are likely to be a mix between emotional and rational.

((rational hardly win � )

Other very important component of geniality = vivacity or enthusiasm with their ideas.

Thank you.

No, I have a very little IQ, you do not need someone with IQ 103.

Read what former researchers on genius has said about them. Genius has a bipolarized personality (not to be confused with bipolar, is not exactly the same thing), on average, of course. They need to combine the extremes of human behavior and more, this combination is constant, ” alive ”. Normal people are apathetic.

I’ve talked a few times about lack of narcissism among East Asians, the blog Pumpkin Persson, remember it because the JS greeted me for the comment.

What traits are required to be a good HBDer? I know high IQ is one of them, but what else? I’m talking mostly in terms of HEXACO, or maybe other characteristics typical of the best HBDers.

Western Europeans, for all their genius in science, mostly seem to find HBD incomprehensible, so their particular set of characteristics must be bad for HBD science.

This is a good post Santoculto. I actually sometimes wonder if Western Europeans may have higher narcissism, rather than lower, even though it’s negatively correlated with honesty-humility (a personality trait whose inverse overlaps a great deal with psychopathy/Dark Triad traits). As Jayman describes here, data on corruption and other factors show that East Asians have lower honesty-humility. But I think though that higher narcissism would help European scientists buck conformity more easily and become potential Galileos. Just my thoughts.

And Santoculto, I’m sorry for being an asshole to you, come back to Pumpkin Person’s blog! We need you there!

Hello Jayman,

Yes, I know my last post was silly oversimplification.

Can you respond to post #31? Nisbett claims that Jewish/Yiddish philosophy is closer to the Chinese than European, but as Anon. states, Arabic and Indian philosophy shared more in common with European than Chinese philosophy. And as some other commenters have stated, mathematics was significantly advanced by Arabs (in actuality, more like Persians) and Indians. Although Nisbett states that algebra was more of an East Asian trait than European one, as the latter mastered geometry first.

Is holism a continuous trait, with those closer China having more of it than others? Or do you think it is something unique to China, with other Asian culture closer to Europe in terms of thinking style? Does the honor culture of Arabic peoples have anything to do with their (overstated) contributions to philosophy/science, and with their style of cognition?

Science is based on mathmatics and that began in the middle east in the 7th century. The two oldest universities are in Turkey and Iraq. Algerbra is an Arab term. The concept of zero is Arabic. You aren’t going to get to the moon using Roman numerals.

By the 7th century Euclid’s Elements was in use as a textbook for a thousand years and maths is far older.
Madrasas aren’t universities. Madrasas issue ijazahs for sharia. Medieval Christian universities were legally autonomous corporate entities, giving degrees in different subjects, that evolved from cathedral schools that pre-date Islam. Some madrasas became universities in the 20th century.
Algebra is an Arabic term. It describes a branch of maths going back to the Sumerians and brought to a new level by Diophantus (“the father of algebra”) and Brahmagupta (the first person to give the rules for computing with zero) before al-KhwÄ�rizmÄ« was born.
The concept of zero as number is Indian.
You aren’t going to improve things by deluding yourself.

Sorry guys, as much as I’d like to delve into this subject, any perspective that I brought up to the table if against the Jay assertion goes into trash. So I can’t.

Although not sure if this will go through,

Rdm, you keep saying things that prove how poorly informed you are. – Smiddy

Is it because I’m poorly informed or is it because I’m going against your idea or assertion? If you want a PhD Level talk, we can have it. I’m not some kind of dropout and spewing out my fantasy idea here.

For the last…

narcisism spectrum…

Narcissists are very self confident. I read a study that said that they tend to make self-assessment errors, believing they are much better than they actually are. Antisocial personality tends to correlate positively with narcissism and / or overconfidence.

East Asians appear to be, on average, less narcissistic of all ethnic groups.

The genius tends to take between. The typical creative displays an ambidextrous personality. A balance between confidence (for example, to believe in their revolutionary ideas when no one is believing) and humility (to recognize one’s mistakes). The zig-zag, the metaphor of the title or reflective thought.

Yes. I think we all have a point in our spirit that shines brighter and that determines our path. I determined this’ point g ” as intrinsic motivation. However, it is also necessary that this motivation is spontaneous and by intellectual and / or cognitive nature.

The conformity factor seems to have a very strong role in this phenomenon, because almost all creative types will be more energetic and nonconformists, although often they will do it stupidly, as with many artists and left-wing intellectuals.

Nonconformity is not synonymous with wisdom, intelligence in its most direct and gross manifestation. This explains why so many nonconformists end up embracing toxic ideologies. Because one does not have to lead to another. Often, they do so because of its overflowing energy and lack of extrinsic focus, than for real understanding of the events that encapsulate.

Leftism is not completely wrong, in fact, is far from. The problem is that to get understand it, you need more neurons. Combine leftism with democracy and you have chaos.

Extrinsic motivation is everything that is not entirely related to our spirit. Asian east, although they may have intrinsic motivations more pronounceable, are good at focusing for example to public examinations and school tests. The ability to dissociate the strong influence of personality on intelligence, in my opinion, a new concept for concentration, is one of the most common and typical cognitive characteristics between them.

In other words, strong personality of people may be less likely to achieve control ” fox seven tails ” (search on google for Naruto;)) who live within them, while people with more domesticated personality, They are best to meet the needs of the system in which they live (without question) but also to control the instinctive pulse in favor of their ‘obligations”.

On spatial IQ. I do not know if the best realist painters artists or talented cartoonists punctuate super high in spatial IQ tests. I think the difference in this respect between East Asian and Euro-Caucasians, it just gives the highest percentage of neuroatypicals with these gifts of nature savant. We know there are people with savant syndrome presenting a visually stunning detail memory and they tend to score very low in general cognitive tests.

The Western advantage has been primarily due to a higher proportion of neuroatypicals types, ie those who actually have some spectacular cognitive gift and that often the great innovators of our time.

I also agree that I do not see the East Asian as less capable of abstract thought, on average. That’s important to specify. The average white is better in the abstract thought that the east asian, or in fact, there is a greater cognitive diversity among whites, resulting in highly intelligent subgroups in abstract thinking compared to East Asians ??

We must keep in mind also that creative geniuses (and other types) are extremely rare, especially in societies like the past, the chances that someone very clever and creative could become prominent in societies dominated by social conformity and class, was likely to have been very little. Note that even in today’s world, nepotism is still prevalent.

An interesting case to be discussed is about the concept and the literal application of creativity among eminent geniuses. For example, Charles Darwin was creative?

I do not think so much in quantitative terms. In fact, he developed a few theories, from what I know. Few theories, but they were exceptional and revolutionary. Darwin was a discontinuous creative, it was not exactly a typical creative, or continuous creative, which has a lot of ideas per day or per month. But he was able to develop (belatedly unbelievable to think that denial of magical thinking of the church, was still very widespread among people ” educated ” until the second half of the nineteenth century) but few revolutionary theories. And from there, his intelligence and willpower were very important for the development of their work.

I think you can see the pattern most clearly when you look at the difference between the two extremes of first cousin marriage: Arab world and NW Europe.

If the basic idea is correct the differences between populations between those two extremes will vary greatly due to local factors (and maybe over time also).

I’d say the basic idea presented here – that the change in marriage culture in NW Europe in the early medieval period had a dramatic effect over time – is correct. Although no doubt a lot of the details will need to be hashed out.

I think it was those changes that somehow lead to the initial increase in wealth – whether through a genetic effect or through creating a society where inventiveness was promoted – although I’d agree once it got started that would create a cycle where the increase in wealth fuels itself.

The thing is there have been many empires in history and they all start with the soon to be imperial power having some kind of advantage over their neighbors. This is only disputed when discussing the European empires of the colonial era so to me it seems like a political argument.

Oddly enough heavy metal seems to have become something of a middle class nerd/bohemian thing – it also seems to haved cross-fertilised alot with the upper middle class nerd world of progressive rock. The working class tend to prefer classic heavy rock like ACDC, while lower middle classic web designers listen to Opeth and Dream Theater.

The progressive metal scene is the future of music, pioneered by the like of Meshuggah and Misha Mansoor. Uncharacteristic to “traditionally” Western music it is dissonant, and of course, it majorly started in Sweden. It is also majorly composed of whites, and in my extensive experience, non-whites are pretty well integrated (or dispersed) into “metal” culture.

Luckily metal has been growing and now is bigger than pop. Because honestly, if there is ever a revolution, metal would go hand-in-hand with it (songs like Thy Art Is Murder’s “Holy War” or Molotov Solution’s “Injustice For All” come to mind). Their lyrics tend to be brutally honest. If there was a genre of music that could every possibly unite future generations of Westerners in some semblance, this is it.

What I emphasized previously here is the claim that hereditary nature of NW Europeans have more creative and scientific tendency compared to rest of the world. Looking at the maps show that all the criteria used in this post (Nobel, Fields Medals, Pubs, Patents) made the NW europeans having more scientific achievement which conveniently translated into “More creative, and more Weirdo� traits.

This is such a Boasian point of view… And its such a joke at this point. You don’t even have to know anything about HBD or genetics, you just have to know history, to see how wrong this point is…

Rdm, you keep saying things that prove how poorly informed you are. Why not actually read the material in question first, and then ask questions later? That way you will atleast seem more informed.

Since my comment won’t be published anyway, whether or not I come up with a different perspective, would I be so wrong if I assert that when it comes to in-depth discussion, dark-skinned people tend to go bananas and block/ban when they get cornered? since they can’t argue against the logic compared to White people, esp NW Europeans?

That’s why those dark-skinned people territory/continents/ are so well behind Evolutionary curve? lower IQ, wild, uncivilized? am I wrong to assert those assumption?

At least this comment will get to you, yet unpublished.

Ciao!

Do you have any books or articles that discuss this? I’ve always wondered if there was a standard-HBD explanation for the huge differences in intelligence and personality between modern and ancient Greeks. Any idea as to what precisely happened?

This very website has an article on it.

Yes. Concentration vs Creativity seems like a better explanation to me. Note how when people take drugs such as modafinil their concentration increases while their creativity decreases.

I’m not buying the idea that Asians are not good at abstract thinking when all evidence except for number of Field’s medals won points to them excelling at Math.

Proposed explanations:
1. Q factor, might also call it passion for understanding.

2. Concentration vs Creativity.

3. Spatial IQ vs Analytical IQ.

4. Abstract thinking ability. Does this overlap with #3?

5. Socioeconomic.

Whatever the reason for why almost all of mankind’s innovation has come from the west, it probably will not be as important in determining global power as it used to be since new technology is now quickly copied.

Oddly enough heavy metal seems to have become something of a middle class nerd/bohemian thing – it also seems to haved cross-fertilised alot with the upper middle class nerd world of progressive rock. The working class tend to prefer classic heavy rock like ACDC, while lower middle classic web designers listen to Opeth and Dream Theater.

Hey Jayman,

If one were to rank the three main racial groups on HEXACO, do you think the order would be as follows? (from high to low):

Honesty-Humility: whites, yellows, blacks
Emotionality: yellows, whites, blacks
EXtroversion: blacks, whites, yellows
Agreeableness: yellows, whites, blacks
Conscientiousness: yellows, whites, blacks
Openness: whites, yellows, blacks

HH and Openness break up Rushton’s old “yellow, white, black” ordering.

Agreed on the population size and selection pressure.

What I emphasized previously here is the claim that hereditary nature of NW Europeans have more creative and scientific tendency compared to rest of the world. Looking at the maps show that all the criteria used in this post (Nobel, Fields Medals, Pubs, Patents) made the NW europeans having more scientific achievement which conveniently translated into “More creative, and more Weirdo” traits.

What I argue is it’s not hereditary tendency, rather it reflects the pre-existing condition of wealth those countries have accumulated over the years. There’s nothing hereditary nature of those NW Europeans making them more creative. It’s the “Wealth” that serves as a foundation for their curiosity to make it reality.

Now let’s say if we test North and South Koreans after 70 years of separation, do South Koreans evolve faster than North Koreans? in terms of their looks, their features, their language?

South Koreans will stand out in “Creativity”, “Innovation” compared to North Koreans when we consider Samsung, LG, LED display used in iPhones, and Kia, Hyundai automobile, etc etc etc. Guess what, if we compare South Koreans and North Koreans in Publications and Patents, National Medals, we can imagine South Korea will have more of those achievements when we put into a map. Does it translate that South Koreans evolve faster than North Koreans? or South Koreans become more creative due to selection pressure?

It’s clear it’s the “Wealth” that propels South Koreans to pursue their creative idea and curiosity to make them reality. And we are only seeing South Koreans economic boom after WWII. It’s not even a century yet.

But those NW Europeans Dutch, French, Germany, British, they once had plethora of colonies in other parts of the world. You can imagine how much “wealth” they would have accumulated over time. That’s why we’re seeing the lopsided distribution of this “Fields Medals, Pubs, Patents” in those Europeans countries.

Fields Medals, Pubs, Patents do not translate into Hereditary nature of “Creativity” and “Curiosity”. They represent “Wealth” as a foundation.

Ancient Greeks were quite different than modern Greeks. And how clannish were the ancients?

Do you have any books or articles that discuss this? I’ve always wondered if there was a standard-HBD explanation for the huge differences in intelligence and personality between modern and ancient Greeks. Any idea as to what precisely happened?

In relation to Eastern thought.

The Buddhist oriental culture says that ” everything is connected ”, while Western culture says that ” things exist separate from each other. ”

I do not know the term holistic is well spent, because thinking holistically, also mean, think about it all, including the details. It would be the very act of thinking about the truth or reality.

The idea that everything is connected is very beautiful and true in parts. However, I do not doubt that this mentality has shaped the eastern ” collective ” consciousness and eliminated most of divergent thinkers who are essentially individualistic, not necessarily in the selfish sense.

The Great Eastern wave is always in the same direction, while the large wave Caucasian most closely resembles the breaking of waves on the rocks of a mediterranean beach, dark gray sand, closer to you.

Environmental factors are also very important to explain why Scandinavia not have been so creative at the time of the Italian Renaissance, for example.

I think, an elite that want to develop ” their ” nation, can contribute considerably to creating conditions for the nurture genius, why not just have a favorable genetic stock, even if it is essential, it is also important to have a meritocratic mechanism highly efficient you can find them and put them in comfortable social situation so that they can develop their talents and ideas.

East Asians are excellent in the ability to concentrate. That is, to neutralize the effects of the personality in relation to cognition. This is one reason to do better in cognitive tests.

Less adhd.

http://www.pyragraph.com/2013/11/creative-loosen-frontal-lobe/

Creativity is based primarily on ability to capture unusual perceptions or remote associations and in this sense, you need to be without centralized attention, because centralized attention mean ”concentrates in a narrow perceptions”. Usually when we are decentralized, it is because we are being bombarded by a lot of perceptions of various kinds. In ” non-creative ”, this can cause torpor.

The ability to concentrate is based on the exact opposite of creativity, and the East Asian are actually very good at it.

Creativity, especially scientific and objectively usual or utilitarian, primarily based on the production of different and interesting ideas

and then

in its development, where the intelligence becomes increasingly necessary.

So the question on the smaller creative capacity of East Asians, on average, in relation to European Caucasians, should be modified or diversified

” Why they are less creative ?? ”

for

” What have they gained from it ?? ”

The ability to concentrate, to isolate the effects of personality on cognition.

Evolution happens every second, but the speed it evolves remains the same.

Evolution speed depends on effective population size: more people = more random mutations.

It will also depend on selection pressure. If the environment remains the same then even if the population increases there may be no reason to select for the new mutations.

If the environment changes e.g. due to the change in marriage pattern in NW Europe, then that might create new selection pressures on both old and any new random mutations.

There are some major problems with your first graph. Germany has just as many Catholics as Protestants, so to lump it in to the Protestant category is very misleading. Switzerland and Netherlands have MORE Catholics than Protestants, so putting them in that section over the other is not accurate at all.

Jayman, if you want to adopt Razib’s haughty attitude towards dissenting commenters, you need to back it up with the same rigor he uses in his arguments.
Instead, you’re edging closer and closer to Koanicsoul levels of fact-freeness.

Look at the Balkans. According to image 10, the whole region shouldn’t be the same color in image 3, and the yellow region in image 4 is not right either. For example, image 10 shows Croatia and Hungary as exactly the same, yet in image 4 Croatia’s approximate IQ is given as 90 and Hungary’s as 100. Image 4 also shows Romania’s approximate IQ as 100, and Bulgaria’s as 90, but image 10 tells us Bulgarians are the more intelligent ones. Which is it then?

Where is my other comment? on NW Europeans? The special kind of race that we now need to put them into “Endangered species” list. Without them, we are not sure of our scientific future ahead.

Stop Saying North and South Koreans Are Necessarily Completely Identical Populations

Ugh, what in the world am I living that North and South Koreans, East and West Germans are biologically and genetically as distinct as Blacks and Whites?

Can we agree to stop using Nobel Prizes as an indicator of intelligence. It’s horribly misleading. It’s like using American Idol winners to declare those with musical talent.

Look at what? I’m looking at Europe in images 3, 4 and 10. They contradict each other.

Ashkenazim surpass NW Europeans on these sorts of measures.

Perhaps this is true, but you still have to remember that the very founding mitochondrial DNA of the Ashkenazi genome is Italian (Northern Italian, which would make them Wasp, if I remember correctly). They really are an “in-betweener” group.

There is no denying the incredible impact of Jews historically, particularly when it comes to ideas, but there’s a plethora of issues which makes accounting for them through any universal system or rubric problematic, to put it mildly.

Also, abstract and scientific thinking goes back to the ancient Greeks. The origin of many extant sciences is credited to Aristotle, and the kind of mathematized model building that characterizes modern science is present in Hellenistic Greece and Near East. No historians of science credit science to NW Europeans. It’s credited to Mediterranean populations.

I think someone else addressed this, but yeah you could do some more research, your definitions seem to be a bit out of context.

1. The Germany article says nothing about HBD. Occam’s razor would make most normal folk attribute this to the tremendous differences in political and religious climates these areas have experienced over the last millennium. Catholicism vs Protestantism, Prussia vs Austria-Hungary vs little city states, Germanic homogeneity vs exposure to the Slavic borderzone and so on.

2. The Korea article is brazen in its abuse of statistical reasoning. Do you know what a Null hypothesis is? If you are claiming there is a genetic difference, it is incumbent upon YOU to prove it. I do not need to prove similarity – the null hypothesis is ALWAYS the baseline assumption in a Frequentist approach. And the overwhelming Bayesian prior, especially in this case where a fairly homogenous country was split apart by a war, is that the people of the DPRK and the ROK have very similar genetics.

3. Historical accidents come from just that, accidents. Winter snowstorms which halt an army’s march. Language barriers which prevent the spread of ideologies. Staple crops which are differentially affected by blight in any given year. Monsoon rains which fail in some areas and not in others, causing peasant revolts here and not there. Empires which exhaust their resources on one war, and find themselves overwhelmed by a new threat.

And what is not caused by accident, can be explained by culture. Europeans were not necessarily predisposed to Christianity, they just happened to be under the rule of an empire which was taken over by Christians. Iranians were not predisposed to either Zoroastrianism or Islam, they just had it rammed down their throats by their emperors.

Was there something genetic about West Punjabis that made them Muslim, while East Punjabis became Sikhs? HBD explains West Bengalis being Hindu, while East Bengalis became Muslim? If the Reconquista hadn’t succeeded, you would have said there was something genetic about Spaniards that made them predisposed to accepting Islam. Now you would say there was something genetic about Spaniards that made them unsuited to Islam, while their cousins across the straits of Gibraltar were a better fit.

None of those explanations can be completely falsified, but it takes a special kind of kook to think that genetic factors are the major explanations for a region’s politico-religious 0utlay.

There are no grand theories to be drawn from these random patterns. You and hbdchick remind me of children looking up at the clouds and imagining flowers and puppies and faces.

Again, you have interesting ideas. But consider running it by someone with a passing knowledge of scientific analysis before publishing it here. God knows we have enough balderdash from that weird Mexican guy and other assorted loonies on Unz.com. Sailer, Razib and Derbyshire keep the place afloat, but they risk getting drowned out by all this baseless stuff.

Ashkenazis are a type of in-betweener group. They have both clannish and WEIRDO attributes (and then, Western Ashkenazis may be less than clannish Eastern Ashkenazis are.)

That would make sense, as their history seems to follow cycles of inbreeding and outbreeding. For example, the Radhanites of the Dark Ages, the theorized founding population of Ashkenazim, surely had the means to outbreed like crazy. Indeed we find everything from and between “NW Euro” to East Asian in their ancestry.

I feel like too many, when it comes to Ashkenazi Jews, focus too much on their history of inbreeding, while overlooking what’s most unique about Ashkenazi breeding patterns historically (in that it is the combination/fluctuation of the two which makes them such an outlier in so many regards).

When you look at the Dark Ages, all the way up to Russia, its almost as if they (the Ashkenazi) were a eugenically globalized man (which correlates with individualism obviously), of sorts, and then duplicated via heavy inbreeding, in spurts (to put it crudely). I find it extremely fascinating, unfortunately I haven’t seen HBD chick talking much about it specifically, would you happen to know of a source?

Furthermore, it is interesting how the Wasp historically spread physical disease, and the Ashkenazi ideological, yet egalitarianism, at least relatively and generally speaking, seems to only come and go with the former. That is a whole nother discussion though I’m sure.

2. NW Europeans

There’s no denying that Europeans in general, specifically Northern Europeans contributed much to the advancement of Humans civilization in the past centuries. It is also understandable if they feel proud of their achievement. However if you go on to explain why Evolution proceeds quicker in NW Europeans and their creativity stems from their hereditary traits or “WEIRDOS” trait, I suggest you pause it there because it’s not clannish or weirdo behavior that propelled them to become 21st century weirdos, it’s an accumulated wealth that propels them into becoming one.

Now let’s look at all the beautiful world maps you put up there.
IQ map shows a bit of distribution across the globe except Africa. NE Asians have the highest IQs whereas Africa has the lowest IQ. That’s not the point here. The point is IQ is relatively distributed across the globe.

Now let’s look at all the other maps.
Nobel Prizes,
Field Medals,
Scientific Publications,
Patents applications,

They all seem to cluster in Europeans countries, especially NW Europeans. Impressive, isn’t it? It is so astounding that out of so many nations, and countries on Earth, only those tiny countries from Europe stood out to contribute much to Science.

You know what would explain? Just show the one giant map with countries that had “COLONIZE” other countries and accumulated wealth over time. That giant maps will explain in no time why we are seeing this lopsided distribution of NW Europeans contribution to Science in the past centuries.

As I commented above, the world maps (Nobel Prize, Field Medal, Pubs, Patents), they are not the result of hereditary traits. They are the offshoot of pre-existing wealth conditions.

If you dare, do the world map before Industrial revolution on these categories and check which continents stood out among others;
1. Civilization (uniting tribal groups one after another, and lasting longer)
2. Vertical movement in an Empire or Monarchy
3. Spreading indigenous genes across the continent
(I’d ask why NW Europeans failed to spread their genes to America in the first place? if their weirdo traits are so suited for discoveries and creativity? Why Native Americans genes are not European genes? Yea Bering straits and continent shaft, whatever, but why not NW Europeans genes? The fact that Native American genes belong to Asian genes is some form of hereditary achievement across the continent, don’t you think?)

Those categories are to be Major Achievements in Human history before science. Now if you put back 21st century lens, you won’t find them major achievement. But I’d say they do stand out as Evolutionary Achievement in certain time point in evolution.

I read your edited post and agreed that if we brought up certain events happened from time immemorial, we can argue forever which event is which.

Not nitpicking over semantics, however I gathered that you are saying Evolution happened a lot faster these days than what had happened a thousand years ago. Therefore, NW Europeans have appeared to evolve scientifically and artistically than the rest of the racial groups during the past centuries, supported by their wealth, achievement, IQ, Nobel, etc etc.

This is a summary of your post in one paragraph. It seems plausible and ego-stroking article for NW Europeans for sure, assuming a human with an average life-span of 70 years, can now look back 400 years of their achievement and feel good whatever that stroke.

I will argue 2 issues; Evolution and NW Europeans.

Evolution happens every second, but the speed it evolves remains the same. Either you go back in time 1000 or 5000 years, you will only understand when you put yourself into contemporary subjects. Since this is scientific perspective, bear with me one this. When you think back what happened an hour ago, you don’t actually need an hour in order to “reflect” or “think back”. Within a flash of second, you remember what happened an hour ago. The same goes for thinking about what happened yesterday. You don’t need 24 hours to think back what happened yesterday. Now think about what happened a year ago. Do you need 365 days to think back? Memory might be blurry, the fact of the matter here is all those time scale: 1 hour, 24 hours, 365 days, you spent those times as time goes by. Your grand grand parents who had lived on this Earth also went by those time scale. An hour they had lived thousands years ago on this Earth is the same hour we are experience these days. But to think back time immemorial, we don’t need to travel back, we just need a flash of second to reflect what had happened previously. That’s when this “Evolution proceeds quicker than you think” problem kicks in.

Do you think a human who had lived 10,000 years ago evolve slowly than we do today? The evolutionary angle we are now looking at is so simple; we tend to look at it from scientific advancement and materialistic achievement. Now pause here. Let’s reflect.

You wake up in the morning, have breakfast, read the news, go for work, walk up straight, smile at other pedestrians you come across. That’s normal for today. Now put yourself back in stone age or whatever age. You woke up in a cave, the cave that you arduously searched in the wilderness to protect yourself because you had to run to death the other day from the wild animals chasing you. You felt some sensation called “hunger” in your stomach. You had no idea what to put something in your mouth. So you grabbed a bunch of leaves protruding from the stone cracks, put into your mouth, and that’s how you started experimenting with different kinds of edible things putting into your mouth.

You went out to navigate the territory; you came across another feather that looked exactly like you. Are you going to smile at him? or are you going to be anxious that he’s going to kill you and eat you? or how do you communicate? by British English? ok that’s a joke.

So coming back to our question of evolution and its speed; the simple thing that we take for granted these days, waking up without worries, be able to smile at fellow human beings, communicating through language, traveling from destination to destination, they all constitute “Evolutionary Achievement” over thousands of years.

From your standpoint, you are discounting those evolutionary achievement with the current evolution. For eg., developing a bona fide language for the first time in human history for communication will take years to become functionally effective. But the offshoot of the existing language is merely “evolution”, unless it is entirely different in nature. So NW Europeans, did they develop their communication language earlier than the rest of the human race? like they became verbal, began asking questions out of curiosity?

The bottom line is Evolution proceeds as the same speed as it did thousands of years ago. What you observed from NW Europeans are not evolutionary traits. They are offshoots of pre-existing conditions, or vis a vis accumulated wealth, which I commented in next.

Nassim Taleb has pointed out that most of the scholars during Islam’s “glory days” were Persian, not Arabic.

Good god, man. Are eastern and western Germany biologically predisposed to communism and capitalism respectively? The koreas? Athens and Sparta?
Accidents of history are rarely given the weight they deserve.
You really need someone to intellectually challenge you, instead of praising you for every little utterance of yours. You have some interesting ideas, but you need honest critique, not a bunch of yes men.

I read this recently:

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/10/why-is-sweden-so-good-at-pop-music/280945/

As a musician (I know some others here are too), I am actually curious about your thoughts here. What does make a good improviser? Low latent inhibition? Situational awareness? A talent for bullshit?

I’m wondering if it’s related to seduction somehow 🙂

I was surprised that you didn’t ask what list of 10 fallacies he resorted to. Zero an “Arab” or “Arabic” concept? Try Indian or maybe Sumerian. Mathematics started in the 7th century (sic)!!! Anyway mathematics has nothing intrinsically to do with the scientific method or any empirical connection to the real world any more than the alphabet.

Oldest universities? I was amused to see 1453 as the founding date on a university building in Istanbul but of course Bologna stakes the best claim in Europe at 1088 and there are lots of lists online – but not one I can find that gives plausibility to Biff’s claims.

As to the achievements of Islam’s glory days it seems to be true that the Arabic of illiterates like the Prophet had become the language of learning and intellectual achievement but that was often the work of Christians and Jews. So….. Arabic, rather than Arab, and not necessarily Muslim.

You posit that NW Europeans are better than NE Asians in abstract thinking yet most people would say Asians have better aptitude for the quintessential abstract field – Math.

It’s true that Asians lag in Field’s Medals, but is that enough to counter what we see in Math Olympiads, test scores, representation in STEM, and most people’s personal experience?

How about in coding?

I would also like to see the m/f difference in Holistic vs Abstract reasoning.