Trump doesn't want immigrants from s***hole countries

AnGrYcRoW said:
Google national anarchism
Click to expand...

Not necessary. It's a contradiction in terms with the same problem that the original anarchists had about understanding how people spontaneously organize in the absence of a state.
 
Viva said:
So you are denying that there are observable differences between specific races political preference? This has nothing to do the theory of r-K selection, but is mostly a noticeable trend that seems to be a constant over the past century.

And you have come to this conclusion how? Rushton's findings seem to suggest otherwise.

http://philipperushton.net/wp-conte...izmann-rushton-canadian-psychology-1-1991.pdf
Click to expand...

There are observable differences between any arbitrarily selected group.
The idea with theories like r-K selection is that they should be validated by predictive usability, not that they should become popular because they serve as a crude framework on which to carefully position selected facts as "scientific" justification for some odious ideology.
 
Ruprecht said:
There are observable differences between any arbitrarily selected group.
The idea with theories like r-K selection is that they should have be validated by predictive usability, not that they should become popular because they serve as a crude framework on which to carefully position selected facts as "scientific" justification for some odious ideology.
Click to expand...

But these groups are not arbitrarily selected. Differences between the races have been studied for centuries and these separate groups are commonly compared to better understand inherent differences whether they be biological or social. I've cited an observable trend that is historically prevalent, and not comparing arbitrary groups but rather groups that are constantly compared in a myriad of ways.

You're dancing around the question at hand, attempting to frame this as a matter of ideological posturing. This is not the case at all. Rushton's findings as well as findings from Jean Francois Gariepy of Duke University seem to go against your claim that its an illegitimate form of biological assessment.
 
Viva said:
But these groups are not arbitrarily selected. Differences between the races have been studied for centuries and these separate groups are commonly compared to better understand inherent differences whether they be biological or social. I've cited an observable trend that is historically prevalent, and not comparing arbitrary groups but rather groups that are constantly compared in a myriad of ways.

You're dancing around the question at hand, attempting to frame this as a matter of ideological posturing. This is not the case at all. Rushton's findings as well as findings from Jean Francois Gariepy of Duke University seem to go against your claim that its an illegitimate form of biological assessment.
Click to expand...

"Differences between the races have been studied for centuries and these separate groups are commonly compared to better understand inherent differences whether they be biological or social. I've cited an observable trend that is historically prevalent, and not comparing arbitrary groups but rather groups that are constantly compared in a myriad of ways." - that doesn't make the selection anything other than arbitrary.

I'm not dancing around anything. In published science r-K selection has been discredited as an evolutionary model/heuristic due to it's simplicity and lack of predictive value.
It's recently been popularised by the fringe right (and that applies as much to Rushton as the bloggers and youtubers I mentioned).
The r-K selection theory centers around fertility rate, and racial theories have nothing to offer there given the similarity of fertility rates up until industrialisation and then the similarity of the resulting decline.
Rushton's early findings were his selective literature review based in self-reported analyses. He's popular with your mob because he justifies your ideology, and broadly discounted outside of it (outside of those funded by the Pioneer Fund) for poor methodology. Simple as that.
I've never heard of Jean Francois Gariepy, but if I were a betting man I'd put money on him being a similar figure.
 
shitholevenn.jpg
 
Corruption (Shithole) Perception Index 2016

can anyone spot the shitholes? And which continent has the most shitholes per capita

IHLRIXG.jpg
 
Last edited:
Ruprecht said:
"Differences between the races have been studied for centuries and these separate groups are commonly compared to better understand inherent differences whether they be biological or social. I've cited an observable trend that is historically prevalent, and not comparing arbitrary groups but rather groups that are constantly compared in a myriad of ways." - that doesn't make the selection anything other than arbitrary.

I'm not dancing around anything. In published science r-K selection has been discredited as an evolutionary model/heuristic due to it's simplicity and lack of predictive value.
It's recently been popularised by the fringe right (and that applies as much to Rushton as the bloggers and youtubers I mentioned).
The r-K selection theory centers around fertility rate, and racial theories have nothing to offer there given the similarity of fertility rates up until industrialisation and then the similarity of the resulting decline.
Rushton's early findings were his selective literature review based in self-reported analyses. He's popular with your mob because he justifies your ideology, and broadly discounted outside of it (outside of those funded by the Pioneer Fund) for poor methodology. Simple as that.
I've never heard of Jean Francois Gariepy, but if I were a betting man I'd put money on him being a similar figure.
Click to expand...

Who has disproven it? It may have been "discredited" by some, but the theory itself has yet to be disproven and even if you observe the life history paradigm it borrows many elements directly from those hypothesized in r/k selection theory. You seem happy to discredit Rushton's report based on speculative reasoning, however you seem hesitant to do the same regarding your own sources. From what I can gather you're implying that my arguments are grounded in cognitive dissonance, which seems hypocritical considering your own approach.

Here is JF Gariepy, a reputable biologist, peaking about it.
 
Last edited:
Viva said:
Who has disproven it? It may have been "discredited" by some, but the theory itself has yet to be disproven and even if you observe the life history paradigm it borrows many elements directly from those hypothesized in r/k selection theory. You seem happy to discredit Rushton's report based on speculative reasoning, however you seem hesitant to do the same regarding your own sources. From what I can gather you're implying that my arguments are grounded in cognitive dissonance, which seems hypocritical considering your own approach.

Here is JF Gariepy, a reputable biologist, peaking about it.
Click to expand...


"Watch this youtube video"...
Yeah, right.

Cognitive dissonance? No, confirmation bias.
My own sources? The entire field of evolutionary ecology for the past three decades?
There's nothing speculative about it. For a start what Georic was proposing wasn't Rushton's assertions. Rushton never applied r/K selection to individuals within a population, let alone as an explanation of the political spectrum. The fact that you don't even seem to comprehend the difference just shows why your mob laps this stuff up.
Besides that, the simple problem with Rushtons assertions (besides flawed metholodology and arbitrary labelling of things like endemic disease as r selective instead of K selective) is the argument through assertion that the differences he proposes to have measured with a literature review consisting of self-reported tests, are best explained through r/K selection. Despite the fact that this contradicts the history of human development prior to the industrial revolution, and with no adequate consideration of other/alternative explanations. Notably, the exact environmental/mortality related factors that have superseded the simplistic r/K continuum as a model due to better predictive success.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,040
Messages
55,463,447
Members
174,786
Latest member
JoyceOuthw

Share this page

Back
Top