hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 768 of 925 FirstFirst ... 268668718758765766767768769770771778818868 ... LastLast
Results 15,341 to 15,360 of 18483

Thread: Jihadist Caliphate LLC. Extremist Thunderdome's everywhere.

  1. #15341
    Larkonis Trassler's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    FEARLESS.
    Posts
    11,203
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    right, let's start out with tossing the entire concept of "race" when it comes to modern humans out the airlock, it might in become relevant at some point in the far future when we really get the genetic engineering train going but it's not relevant now, and it most likely wont ever be. you can find larger in-group variations than between groups divided by skin color, if we take two ordinary, boring "white" britons and run their genetic profiles up against somebody from zimbabwe you could easily find that the difference between your two britons is larger than the difference between either briton and the one from zimbabwe (it's especially prevalent in the former colonial nations and nations that have been subject to mass migrations, it doesn't take much imagination to see why that might be)
    Ah yes, the 'greater genetic variation within populations than between them meme'... The difference between two random individual britons and a briton and a zimbabwean may well be different but looking at populations as a who one can see trends and it's not hard to tell someone's ancestry...



    so it's fucking meaningless to even discuss anything related to genetics on the "traditional" race context, you follow ?
    Not really. You can't apply anything on an individual basis but looking at population groups as a whole, where some groups are at greater risk of certain diseases/disorders because of genetic factors you can better target public health resources.

    secondly, intelligence as i wrote above is not a uniform attribute, Galileo was no doubt a clever bloke, but not clever enough to see that his ideas would rather severely offend the dominant authority in his society so socially we can, and do, select against certain types of "intelligence".
    I agree, there is more to intelligence than IQ, although broadly high IQ correlates well with positive life outcomes. There's no doubt more than one 'smart gene', along with genes which effect one's character and temprement.

    evolution happens on a generational scale, we're faaar too close to actually going from predators to global apex predators to even have separated into distinct species.


    you're massively underestimating just how successful as a species humanity is, we're a mere 12000 years away from agricultural revolution at about 500 generations, while only 20 generations away from starting to look at the world in a systematic framework (ie, science), as far as the archeological evidence go, nothing can even come close to our success, there literately haven't been enough time to genetically separate in a meaningful manner.
    Keep in mind we're about 50,000 years from when humans first left Africa, so 4x as many generations. Population groups bred with other subspecies of archaic humans as they spread throughout the world. There are population groups that have suffered various disasters over the millenia and have been reduced to hundreds, maybe even a few dozen 'breeding pairs' creating something of a bottleneck. Those surviving pairs may well have possessed more beneficial traits than their contemparies who didn't survive which will have been passed down in greater concentrations to their offspring and so on. There literally has been enough time to genetically separate.

    We know that the so called 'warrior gene' which is associated with anti-social behaviour didn't do such a good job of making it out of Africa.

    It's a shame we can't have a reasonable discussion on this topic without coming back to 'race'.


  2. #15342
    W0lf Crendraven's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 27, 2012
    Location
    The United
    Posts
    8,970
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by W0lf Crendraven View Post
    Lets ignore PC and stuff, would it make sense evolutionary for specific groups of people (i.e races) to be less intelligent then others? Is being smart at some point unimportant to being a good hunter and gatherer and thus indigenous tribes are less smart then people living in a big society where a higher IQ leads to better survivial? And was a higher IQ actually a positive thing within our past societies, or did that just get you killed?


    And how long does it take for evolution to actually take effect? Would, in theory any race be dumber then any other?
    right, let's start out with tossing the entire concept of "race" when it comes to modern humans out the airlock, it might in become relevant at some point in the far future when we really get the genetic engineering train going but it's not relevant now, and it most likely wont ever be. you can find larger in-group variations than between groups divided by skin color, if we take two ordinary, boring "white" britons and run their genetic profiles up against somebody from zimbabwe you could easily find that the difference between your two britons is larger than the difference between either briton and the one from zimbabwe (it's especially prevalent in the former colonial nations and nations that have been subject to mass migrations, it doesn't take much imagination to see why that might be)

    so it's fucking meaningless to even discuss anything related to genetics on the "traditional" race context, you follow ?

    secondly, intelligence as i wrote above is not a uniform attribute, Galileo was no doubt a clever bloke, but not clever enough to see that his ideas would rather severely offend the dominant authority in his society so socially we can, and do, select against certain types of "intelligence".

    evolution happens on a generational scale, we're faaar too close to actually going from predators to global apex predators to even have separated into distinct species.


    you're massively underestimating just how successful as a species humanity is, we're a mere 12000 years away from agricultural revolution at about 500 generations, while only 20 generations away from starting to look at the world in a systematic framework (ie, science), as far as the archeological evidence go, nothing can even come close to our success, there literately haven't been enough time to genetically separate in a meaningful manner.
    What Lark says, also for intelligence to be different you dont need much time. Again, look at dogs. Within 20 generations you can have massive changes, the afghan hound coming to mind again. If the smart people within a society die, over and over, it wouldnt take that long for the general population to become more stupid genetically. Even if the difference in the actual dna is super tiny, it is still there.


    Also, keep in mind that if i (or anyone i think) uses the word race they mean a group of people that mostly have children amongst themselves over a long period of time. The aborigines or tribes in the amazon for example.
    Last edited by W0lf Crendraven; March 19 2017 at 12:00:16 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by QuackBot View Post
    I see you have read nietzsche's little known work "beyond boobs and butts".

  3. #15343
    Liare's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    11,080
    Quote Originally Posted by FatFreddy View Post
    Liare, time travel expert and thus master historian and fruthermore intricate connaisseur and psychological expert regarding Galileo Galileis' motives, inner thought process and decision making

    fucking lulz
    ..time travel ?

    the smart thing to do would have been to drop the matter after the first inquisitional conviction, instead of keeping pounding the oar in (make the pope out to be a raging moron? brave man tbh) and we can all be rather grateful that he didn't do the smart thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Larkonis Trassler View Post
    Ah yes, the 'greater genetic variation within populations than between them meme'... The difference between two random individual britons and a briton and a zimbabwean may well be different but looking at populations as a who one can see trends and it's not hard to tell someone's ancestry...

    you're not presenting anything that is in any way profound or could not be deduced by reading a history book that covers from around the fall of the Roman empire in the west and until today, you're also looking at a data-sample based on testing for 300.000 base-pairs, out of 3 billion and pocket-change and specifically targeting the areas that have the greatest variability.

    you see significantly greater genetic diversity in dogs than in humans, but it's still a single species.

    Quote Originally Posted by Larkonis Trassler View Post
    Not really. You can't apply anything on an individual basis but looking at population groups as a whole, where some groups are at greater risk of certain diseases/disorders because of genetic factors you can better target public health resources.
    this, is not news and already being done extensively, additional medical checkups for people at risk of getting inheritable genetic disorders and so forth.

    I agree, there is more to intelligence than IQ, although broadly high IQ correlates well with positive life outcomes. There's no doubt more than one 'smart gene', along with genes which effect one's character and temprement.
    correlation is not causation, the role of epigenetics is still being explored, controlling for social factors is ethically impossible and the list just goes on and on and on, and that is making the assumption that there even is a genetic factor involved in what we call intelligence.

    even if more successful people score higher on IQ tests on average, is that a result of them being better equipped genetically, or better educated ? how do you control for either factor in the first place ?

    add the way the argument is often, if not always put forward with a implicit or explicit racism bend to it, and you get why it's rejected out of hand.

    Keep in mind we're about 50,000 years from when humans first left Africa, so 4x as many generations. Population groups bred with other subspecies of archaic humans as they spread throughout the world. There are population groups that have suffered various disasters over the millenia and have been reduced to hundreds, maybe even a few dozen 'breeding pairs' creating something of a bottleneck. Those surviving pairs may well have possessed more beneficial traits than their contemparies who didn't survive which will have been passed down in greater concentrations to their offspring and so on. There literally has been enough time to genetically separate.

    We know that the so called 'warrior gene' which is associated with anti-social behaviour didn't do such a good job of making it out of Africa.

    It's a shame we can't have a reasonable discussion on this topic without coming back to 'race'.
    again, see dogs and remember we've been breeding them for specific traits for generations, it's fundamentally the same species.

    Quote Originally Posted by W0lf Crendraven View Post
    What Lark says, also for intelligence to be different you dont need much time. Again, look at dogs. Within 20 generations you can have massive changes, the afghan hound coming to mind again. If the smart people within a society die, over and over, it wouldnt take that long for the general population to become more stupid genetically. Even if the difference in the actual dna is super tiny, it is still there.


    Also, keep in mind that if i (or anyone i think) uses the word race they mean a group of people that mostly have children amongst themselves over a long period of time. The aborigines or tribes in the amazon for example.
    the Afghan hound is a example of selective breeding, you're confusing human behavior where we get to pick whomever we want/are able to with human-intervention, but even if we selectively bred humans for specific traits, and we don't and never have, your example with the purebreed Afghan hound took 20 generations to evolve (well hello 1500's!) and even then the evolutionary history of dogs is a enormous cluster-fuck where even finding one that somewhat resembles whatever our ancestors domesticated is impossible and where the genetic divergence has drifted both apart and closer together numerous times following human migration patterns.
    Viking, n.:
    1. Daring Scandinavian seafarers, explorers, adventurers, entrepreneurs world-famous for their aggressive, nautical import business, highly leveraged takeovers and blue eyes.
    2. Bloodthirsty sea pirates who ravaged northern Europe beginning in the 9th century.

    Hagar's note: The first definition is much preferred; the second is used only by malcontents, the envious, and disgruntled owners of waterfront property.

  4. #15344
    W0lf Crendraven's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 27, 2012
    Location
    The United
    Posts
    8,970
    Its an extreme example, but it is a valid one imo. The effects wouldnt be as profound due to no selective breeding, but they would still be there. If some group of people lived in such a way that it would punish the smart ones, over thousands of years they would get dumber and dumber. Or do you disagree with that?
    Last edited by W0lf Crendraven; March 19 2017 at 01:46:07 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by QuackBot View Post
    I see you have read nietzsche's little known work "beyond boobs and butts".

  5. #15345
    FatFreddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    14,076
    Quote Originally Posted by W0lf Crendraven View Post
    Its an extreemly example, but it is a valid one imo. The effects wouldnt be as profound due to no selective breeding, but they would still be there. If some group of people lived in such a way that it would punish the smart ones, over thousands of years they would get dumber and dumber. Or do you disagree with that?
    You don't need thousands of years of that, just three generations of capitalist brainwashing finished off with 8 years under a president who just happened to have too many of them big words in his speeces and the wrong skin color for 50% of the electorate.

    As a result, the already heavily tainted gene pool reared up in a desperate last-ditch defense of its established modus operandi and opted for persistence at all cost in a fascinating human variation of colony collapse disorder.
    Last edited by FatFreddy; March 19 2017 at 01:29:33 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by QuackBot
    Pastry.. That the best you can do?
    Quote Originally Posted by NotXenosis View Post

    M8, i have discussions that spam multiple accounts, you aren't even on my level

  6. #15346
    Joe Appleby's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    in front of the class
    Posts
    12,699
    Huge ass walls of text you guys are writing for something that was discussed already in 1985.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gal%...29?wprov=sfla1

    Kurt Vonnegut's novel 'Galapagos'

    A group of humans are stranded on Santa Rosalia in 1986 while the rest of the world is wiped out.

    the only true villain in my story: the oversized human brain
    Tapapapatalk
    nevar forget

  7. #15347
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    8,994
    Quote Originally Posted by Larkonis Trassler View Post
    We know that the so called 'warrior gene' which is associated with anti-social behaviour didn't do such a good job of making it out of Africa.
    This is an amusing conclusion to reach when you consider the last 1000 years of human history m8.
    meh

  8. #15348
    Larkonis Trassler's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    FEARLESS.
    Posts
    11,203
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Larkonis Trassler View Post
    We know that the so called 'warrior gene' which is associated with anti-social behaviour didn't do such a good job of making it out of Africa.
    This is an amusing conclusion to reach when you consider the last 1000 years of human history m8.
    Care to offer a proper argument or alternative conclusion?

    When faced with social exclusion or ostracism, individuals with the low activity MAOA gene showed higher levels of aggression than individuals with the high activity MAOA gene.[41] Low activity MAO-A could significantly predict aggressive behaviour in a high provocation situation, but was less associated with aggression in a low provocation situation. Individuals with the low activity variant of the MAOA gene were just as likely as participants with the high activity variant to retaliate when the loss was small. However, they were more likely to retaliate and with greater force when the loss was large
    My bold. Can you not see how that might be a hinderance in a lot of situations?


  9. #15349
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    8,994
    Quote Originally Posted by Larkonis Trassler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Larkonis Trassler View Post
    We know that the so called 'warrior gene' which is associated with anti-social behaviour didn't do such a good job of making it out of Africa.
    This is an amusing conclusion to reach when you consider the last 1000 years of human history m8.
    Care to offer a proper argument or alternative conclusion?

    When faced with social exclusion or ostracism, individuals with the low activity MAOA gene showed higher levels of aggression than individuals with the high activity MAOA gene.[41] Low activity MAO-A could significantly predict aggressive behaviour in a high provocation situation, but was less associated with aggression in a low provocation situation. Individuals with the low activity variant of the MAOA gene were just as likely as participants with the high activity variant to retaliate when the loss was small. However, they were more likely to retaliate and with greater force when the loss was large
    My bold. Can you not see how that might be a hinderance in a lot of situations?
    European high score for the last century = 70+ million. I don't think Africa comes close, m8.

    E: in all seriousness though, are we finding a genetic marker for something, or attributing a genetic marker to something that is caused by socio-economic conditioning?
    Last edited by erichkknaar; March 19 2017 at 02:29:03 PM.

  10. #15350
    Larkonis Trassler's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    FEARLESS.
    Posts
    11,203
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    you're not presenting anything that is in any way profound or could not be deduced by reading a history book that covers from around the fall of the Roman empire in the west and until today, you're also looking at a data-sample based on testing for 300.000 base-pairs, out of 3 billion and pocket-change and specifically targeting the areas that have the greatest variability.

    you see significantly greater genetic diversity in dogs than in humans, but it's still a single species.
    Did I suggest that there is more than one human species? As for dogs, some breeds are known for/have been bred for their intelligence, does that not indicate that there is a genetic component to it?

    this, is not news and already being done extensively, additional medical checkups for people at risk of getting inheritable genetic disorders and so forth.
    I didn't say it was news. But you do agree that different populations have risks of developing illnesses and disorders?

    correlation is not causation, the role of epigenetics is still being explored, controlling for social factors is ethically impossible and the list just goes on and on and on, and that is making the assumption that there even is a genetic factor involved in what we call intelligence.

    even if more successful people score higher on IQ tests on average, is that a result of them being better equipped genetically, or better educated ? how do you control for either factor in the first place ?
    Why not both? There's numerous twin studies and adoption studies that suggest that there is a heritable factor to IQ at the very least.

    add the way the argument is often, if not always put forward with a implicit or explicit racism bend to it, and you get why it's rejected out of hand.
    I'll ask again. If there's genuinely nothing to worry about then why not carry out the research?

    again, see dogs and remember we've been breeding them for specific traits for generations, it's fundamentally the same species.
    I don't think I suggested that japanese people and indians are a seperate species. You also didn't address my point.


  11. #15351
    Liare's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    11,080
    Quote Originally Posted by W0lf Crendraven View Post
    Its an extreme example, but it is a valid one imo. The effects wouldnt be as profound due to no selective breeding, but they would still be there. If some group of people lived in such a way that it would punish the smart ones, over thousands of years they would get dumber and dumber. Or do you disagree with that?
    your assertion requires proof, until proof is produced it's just that, an assertion.

    intellectuals have, as a rule, been favoured by rulers historically because of the value they add, it's on you to point at a significant adverse selection criteria, preferably in detail. your scenario requires people to act against their best interests in a concerted manner, successful human beings dont do that because when they do, other human beings that dont do that come and take their stuff.

    there are few to no dysgenic factors at play in modern society, we've broadened the success criteria significantly by making survival of the individual easier, but that doesn't mean we're suddenly no longer following the usual evolutionary principles. you can argue that we're about to progress beyond that by having the tools to take a more directed approach to how future generations turn out, but we're not actually designing babies right now, and we wont for the foreseeable future.

    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Larkonis Trassler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Larkonis Trassler View Post
    We know that the so called 'warrior gene' which is associated with anti-social behaviour didn't do such a good job of making it out of Africa.
    This is an amusing conclusion to reach when you consider the last 1000 years of human history m8.
    Care to offer a proper argument or alternative conclusion?

    When faced with social exclusion or ostracism, individuals with the low activity MAOA gene showed higher levels of aggression than individuals with the high activity MAOA gene.[41] Low activity MAO-A could significantly predict aggressive behaviour in a high provocation situation, but was less associated with aggression in a low provocation situation. Individuals with the low activity variant of the MAOA gene were just as likely as participants with the high activity variant to retaliate when the loss was small. However, they were more likely to retaliate and with greater force when the loss was large
    My bold. Can you not see how that might be a hinderance in a lot of situations?
    European high score for the last century = 70+ million. I don't think Africa comes close, m8.
    you're low-balling mate, by quite a bit no less, don't forget various colonial wars and so forth.
    Last edited by Liare; March 19 2017 at 02:39:20 PM.
    Viking, n.:
    1. Daring Scandinavian seafarers, explorers, adventurers, entrepreneurs world-famous for their aggressive, nautical import business, highly leveraged takeovers and blue eyes.
    2. Bloodthirsty sea pirates who ravaged northern Europe beginning in the 9th century.

    Hagar's note: The first definition is much preferred; the second is used only by malcontents, the envious, and disgruntled owners of waterfront property.

  12. #15352
    Larkonis Trassler's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    FEARLESS.
    Posts
    11,203
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post

    European high score for the last century = 70+ million. I don't think Africa comes close, m8.

    E: in all seriousness though, are we finding a genetic marker for something, or attributing a genetic marker to something that is caused by socio-economic conditioning?
    Top bants, although I get the impression it has more of an impact on behaviour in immeadiate social situations rather than steamrolling Poland.

    There seems to be a decent amount of :science: behind the effect this particular gene has on brain chemistry. It would be interesting to see (for example) what % of violent offenders are carriers compared to the rest of the population.


  13. #15353
    Larkonis Trassler's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    FEARLESS.
    Posts
    11,203
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Larkonis Trassler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Larkonis Trassler View Post
    We know that the so called 'warrior gene' which is associated with anti-social behaviour didn't do such a good job of making it out of Africa.
    This is an amusing conclusion to reach when you consider the last 1000 years of human history m8.
    Care to offer a proper argument or alternative conclusion?

    When faced with social exclusion or ostracism, individuals with the low activity MAOA gene showed higher levels of aggression than individuals with the high activity MAOA gene.[41] Low activity MAO-A could significantly predict aggressive behaviour in a high provocation situation, but was less associated with aggression in a low provocation situation. Individuals with the low activity variant of the MAOA gene were just as likely as participants with the high activity variant to retaliate when the loss was small. However, they were more likely to retaliate and with greater force when the loss was large
    My bold. Can you not see how that might be a hinderance in a lot of situations?
    European high score for the last century = 70+ million. I don't think Africa comes close, m8.
    you're low-balling mate, by quite a bit no less, don't forget various colonial wars and so forth.
    >Implying colonial wars were a potential large loss scenario for the aggressors.


  14. #15354
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    8,994
    Quote Originally Posted by Larkonis Trassler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post

    European high score for the last century = 70+ million. I don't think Africa comes close, m8.

    E: in all seriousness though, are we finding a genetic marker for something, or attributing a genetic marker to something that is caused by socio-economic conditioning?
    Top bants, although I get the impression it has more of an impact on behaviour in immeadiate social situations rather than steamrolling Poland.

    There seems to be a decent amount of :science: behind the effect this particular gene has on brain chemistry. It would be interesting to see (for example) what % of violent offenders are carriers compared to the rest of the population.
    I have a friend who studies this actually. Like species memory stuff. She studies meerkats and why the babies instinctively hide from shadows, even if they've never been taught. How instinct gets imprinted. It clearly does, by some mechanism we don't understand, and, if it works over many examples in the animal kingdom, why can't it work with humans?

  15. #15355
    Donor Tellenta's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    16,209
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Larkonis Trassler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post

    European high score for the last century = 70+ million. I don't think Africa comes close, m8.

    E: in all seriousness though, are we finding a genetic marker for something, or attributing a genetic marker to something that is caused by socio-economic conditioning?
    Top bants, although I get the impression it has more of an impact on behaviour in immeadiate social situations rather than steamrolling Poland.

    There seems to be a decent amount of :science: behind the effect this particular gene has on brain chemistry. It would be interesting to see (for example) what % of violent offenders are carriers compared to the rest of the population.
    I have a friend who studies this actually. Like species memory stuff. She studies meerkats and why the babies instinctively hide from shadows, even if they've never been taught. How instinct gets imprinted. It clearly does, by some mechanism we don't understand, and, if it works over many examples in the animal kingdom, why can't it work with humans?
    It does but we are predators not prey. Our triggers are darkness and unfamiliarity, loud noises, movement, unexpected differences.

  16. #15356
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    8,994
    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenta View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Larkonis Trassler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post

    European high score for the last century = 70+ million. I don't think Africa comes close, m8.

    E: in all seriousness though, are we finding a genetic marker for something, or attributing a genetic marker to something that is caused by socio-economic conditioning?
    Top bants, although I get the impression it has more of an impact on behaviour in immeadiate social situations rather than steamrolling Poland.

    There seems to be a decent amount of :science: behind the effect this particular gene has on brain chemistry. It would be interesting to see (for example) what % of violent offenders are carriers compared to the rest of the population.
    I have a friend who studies this actually. Like species memory stuff. She studies meerkats and why the babies instinctively hide from shadows, even if they've never been taught. How instinct gets imprinted. It clearly does, by some mechanism we don't understand, and, if it works over many examples in the animal kingdom, why can't it work with humans?
    It does but we are predators not prey. Our triggers are darkness and unfamiliarity, loud noises, movement, unexpected differences.
    Yep, all things that can trigger aggression too. Also, what does being treated as prey by more advanced civilizations do to a "race" of people.
    meh

  17. #15357
    Donor Tellenta's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    16,209
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenta View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Larkonis Trassler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post

    European high score for the last century = 70+ million. I don't think Africa comes close, m8.

    E: in all seriousness though, are we finding a genetic marker for something, or attributing a genetic marker to something that is caused by socio-economic conditioning?
    Top bants, although I get the impression it has more of an impact on behaviour in immeadiate social situations rather than steamrolling Poland.

    There seems to be a decent amount of :science: behind the effect this particular gene has on brain chemistry. It would be interesting to see (for example) what % of violent offenders are carriers compared to the rest of the population.
    I have a friend who studies this actually. Like species memory stuff. She studies meerkats and why the babies instinctively hide from shadows, even if they've never been taught. How instinct gets imprinted. It clearly does, by some mechanism we don't understand, and, if it works over many examples in the animal kingdom, why can't it work with humans?
    It does but we are predators not prey. Our triggers are darkness and unfamiliarity, loud noises, movement, unexpected differences.
    Yep, all things that can trigger aggression too. Also, what does being treated as prey by more advanced civilizations do to a "race" of people.
    How do Europeans treat those of the former caliphate? They preyed on Europe almost relentlessly from about 600-1750.

  18. #15358
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    8,994
    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenta View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenta View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Larkonis Trassler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post

    European high score for the last century = 70+ million. I don't think Africa comes close, m8.

    E: in all seriousness though, are we finding a genetic marker for something, or attributing a genetic marker to something that is caused by socio-economic conditioning?
    Top bants, although I get the impression it has more of an impact on behaviour in immeadiate social situations rather than steamrolling Poland.

    There seems to be a decent amount of :science: behind the effect this particular gene has on brain chemistry. It would be interesting to see (for example) what % of violent offenders are carriers compared to the rest of the population.
    I have a friend who studies this actually. Like species memory stuff. She studies meerkats and why the babies instinctively hide from shadows, even if they've never been taught. How instinct gets imprinted. It clearly does, by some mechanism we don't understand, and, if it works over many examples in the animal kingdom, why can't it work with humans?
    It does but we are predators not prey. Our triggers are darkness and unfamiliarity, loud noises, movement, unexpected differences.
    Yep, all things that can trigger aggression too. Also, what does being treated as prey by more advanced civilizations do to a "race" of people.
    How do Europeans treat those of the former caliphate? They preyed on Europe almost relentlessly from about 600-1750.
    Right? One wonders where that leads.
    meh

  19. #15359
    Donor Tellenta's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    16,209
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenta View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenta View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Larkonis Trassler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post

    European high score for the last century = 70+ million. I don't think Africa comes close, m8.

    E: in all seriousness though, are we finding a genetic marker for something, or attributing a genetic marker to something that is caused by socio-economic conditioning?
    Top bants, although I get the impression it has more of an impact on behaviour in immeadiate social situations rather than steamrolling Poland.

    There seems to be a decent amount of :science: behind the effect this particular gene has on brain chemistry. It would be interesting to see (for example) what % of violent offenders are carriers compared to the rest of the population.
    I have a friend who studies this actually. Like species memory stuff. She studies meerkats and why the babies instinctively hide from shadows, even if they've never been taught. How instinct gets imprinted. It clearly does, by some mechanism we don't understand, and, if it works over many examples in the animal kingdom, why can't it work with humans?
    It does but we are predators not prey. Our triggers are darkness and unfamiliarity, loud noises, movement, unexpected differences.
    Yep, all things that can trigger aggression too. Also, what does being treated as prey by more advanced civilizations do to a "race" of people.
    How do Europeans treat those of the former caliphate? They preyed on Europe almost relentlessly from about 600-1750.
    Right? One wonders where that leads.
    It's a legit question, if I'm reading your hypothesis correctly you're trying to say oppression leads to racial submissive traits. Step one test that hypothesis, if it passes the basic idea smell test advance further if it doesn't then your hypothesis is wrong and you need a new explanation.

  20. #15360
    walrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Fancomicidolkostümier- ungsspielgruppenzusammenkunft
    Posts
    5,946
    I haven't bothered to read the last bunch of pages, but I'm quite certain that people with long craniums are better.
      Spoiler:
    Quote Originally Posted by RazoR View Post
    But islamism IS a product of class warfare. Rich white countries come into developing brown dictatorships, wreck the leadership, infrastructure and economy and then act all surprised that religious fanaticism is on the rise.
    Also:
    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenta View Post
    walrus isnt a bad poster.
    Quote Originally Posted by cullnean View Post
    also i like walrus.
    Quote Originally Posted by AmaNutin View Post
    Yer a hoot

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •