Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The War Room' started by TapoutforSprawl, Jan 11, 2018.
Google national anarchism
Well that sucks. Ah well, I tried.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
Corruption (Shithole) Perception Index 2016
can anyone spot the shitholes? And which continent has the most shitholes per capita
Don't worry. He'll make a few calls and all will be fixed.
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.
"Watch this youtube video"...
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.
THIS IS GOLD JERRY!!!
What has to go wrong in a person's life for them to latch on to a notion as asinine as this?
That looks funny now, but don't kid yourself, that phone was sweet in its day.
That's cool, how's the rest of your 8th grade year going?
It's not a statement of arrogance if it's true.
45 pages for this? Jesus christ