Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

interestrateripoff

Inconvenient Truths About Our Evolution?

Recommended Posts

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/inconvenient-truths-about-our-evolution-2146994.html

Why do beautiful people have more daughters? Because beauty is more important for a woman than a man, according to evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa.

Why are most suicide bombers Muslim? Because they don't get enough sex. Why are liberals more intelligent than conservatives? Because liberalism is "evolutionarily novel."

The London School of Economics researcher and author of Ten Politically Incorrect Truths about Human Nature is accustomed to defending his provocative assertions against outraged critics.

He acknowledges that some of his ideas may seem "immoral, contrary to our ideals or offensive". But he insists they are true and supported by scientific evidence that he has continued to collect since his book was published in 2007. "Like it or not, human nature is simply not politically correct," he says.

Now, in a study to be published in Reproductive Sciences, he has adduced new evidence for what he describes as one of the most celebrated principles in evolutionary biology which explains why attractive people have more female children. So how does the research stack up?

.........

10 Men sexually harass women because they are not sexist

Men always subjected each other to abusive, intimidating and degrading treatment at work. It is part of their reaction to competitive situations. Men are not treating women differently when they harass them. They do it because they are not discriminating, Dr Kanazawa says.

An excellent way to get publicity for your book.

I've now off to do a bit of sexual harassment as I don't want a visit from the diversity equality officer about me being discriminatory against women....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/inconvenient-truths-about-our-evolution-2146994.html

An excellent way to get publicity for your book.

I've now off to do a bit of sexual harassment as I don't want a visit from the diversity equality officer about me being discriminatory against women....

Is he suggesting that attractive women murder their sons? Hmmmm .... that is a counter-intuitive thought! Alternatively it could also mean that I am rating myself too highly. :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is he suggesting that attractive women murder their sons? Hmmmm .... that is a counter-intuitive thought! Alternatively it could also mean that I am rating myself too highly. :angry:

I think he's saying, in genetic pools where beauty is stronger than intelligence there is (on an evolutionary level) an advantage from having daughters as they will get further based on looks than men.

How nature knows how pretty the daughters are I have no idea.. prior natural selection I guess :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/inconvenient-truths-about-our-evolution-2146994.html

An excellent way to get publicity for your book.

I've now off to do a bit of sexual harassment as I don't want a visit from the diversity equality officer about me being discriminatory against women....

Evolutionary psychology is a brilliant way of coming up with entertaining, plausible-sounding explanations for absolutely any behavior whatsoever. Thus allowing anyone of pretty much any political persuasion to claim that their politics are the result of biology and therefore correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he's saying, in genetic pools where beauty is stronger than intelligence there is (on an evolutionary level) an advantage from having daughters as they will get further based on looks than men.

How nature knows how pretty the daughters are I have no idea.. prior natural selection I guess :blink:

Ahhh! I see. Mind you I do wonder what he means by 'getting further' - in evolutionary genetics this probably means producing more offspring. I don't know any really attractive women who were actually made happier by having lots of attention from men. Look at all of the unhappy Cheryl Coles, Kerry Katonas and Jennifer Aniston's of the world.

Another thought, it perfectly explains that ill-tempered neighbour at the weekend. I was obviously wounding his ego when I said I was buying the house next to his for cash. (Not really - changed my mind).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Men always subjected each other to abusive, intimidating and degrading treatment at work. It is part of their reaction to competitive situations. Men are not treating women differently when they harass them. They do it because they are not discriminating, Dr Kanazawa says.

The inconvenient truth about our 'scientists'

Incompetent scientists always subject us to abusive, intimidating and degrading studies they claim to have 'done'. It is part of their reaction to the competitive grant application and/or publishing requirements. Incompetent scientists are not treating the public any differently to their peers when they ******** them with pseudoscience. They do it because they are greedy, unethical equal opportunity shysters who happily steal from anyone and everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting post.

From Wikipedia, he sounds rather conservative himself. Racist they even call him. I disagree, i dont see that seeing traits more prevalent in a race means you need to see them within every individual within that race and prejudge them as such. You can hold stereotypes and not act on them.

Kanazawa's theories on race and intelligence are controversial. Kanazawa has argued that Asian cultural traditions and/or character inhibit Asian scientific creativity[12] and that "political correctness" is a bigger threat to American evolutionary psychology than religious fundamentalism.[13] As a result, he has been accused of promoting "racist stereotypes".[14] In 2006 Kanazawa published a controversial paper suggesting that poor health of people in some nations is the result, not of poverty, but rather lower IQ

Ive thought this for a long time, and thought it might be a reason why Asians(orientals) are more intelligent and have a bigger brain than whites, but tended to achieve less in absolute terms. Ie, in the last thousand years, why is it that European nations got massive empires and the far east didnt. I thought they had Genghis Khan, a truly outstanding individual, who had the typically non-asian trait of taking massive risks, to achieve potentially massive, but uncertain gains as a result. Yet, because the traits in that race discourage risk-taking on a scale whites would, there was no long line of explorers, creators etc to carry on his lead. Why did the chinese create things like gunpowder, fireworks and hot-air flight, but not have the creativity or willingness to use them to such an extent of later europeans.

As you would expect, the social scientific community see his unorthodox views as challenging the status quo and, like the climate lobby, use the usual slurs against him

Kanazawa mistook statistical associations for evidence of causality and falsely concluded that populations in sub-Saharan Africa are less healthy because they are unintelligent and not because they are poor

P.Z. Myers, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Minnesota, has called Kanazawa "the great idiot of social science."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thought, it perfectly explains that ill-tempered neighbour at the weekend. I was obviously wounding his ego when I said I was buying the house next to his for cash. (Not really - changed my mind).

:lol: Nothing personal I'm sure.. jealous contempt would probably be the reaction of many people to someone saying they were about to buy their neighbour out with cash!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A study by Dr Kanazawa, published in Social Science Quarterly in March, based on the same data showed that young adults who identified themselves as "very liberal" had an average IQ of 106 while those who identified themselves as "very conservative" had an average IQ of 95.

What utter tripe!

Those with higher IQs are more likely to be put through the liberal/left indoctrination process of higher education, and thus identify themselves as 'very liberal'. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

attractive women who were actually made happier by having lots of attention from men. Look at all [...] Kerry Katonas of the world.

Kerry Katona!!! Are you visually challenged? Stop with this crazy talk!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive thought this for a long time, and thought it might be a reason why Asians(orientals) are more intelligent and have a bigger brain than whites, but tended to achieve less in absolute terms. Ie, in the last thousand years, why is it that European nations got massive empires and the far east didnt. I thought they had Genghis Khan, a truly outstanding individual, who had the typically non-asian trait of taking massive risks, to achieve potentially massive, but uncertain gains as a result. Yet, because the traits in that race discourage risk-taking on a scale whites would, there was no long line of explorers, creators etc to carry on his lead. Why did the chinese create things like gunpowder, fireworks and hot-air flight, but not have the creativity or willingness to use them to such an extent of later europeans.

Asians on average are more intelligent than Whites, but there is little deviation from the mean so they all tend to be rather uniform. On the other hand Whites deviate far from the mean, so they end up with more geniuses and creatives (Newtons, Bachs, Da Vincis etc.), but on the other hand also produce some of the stupidest people in the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How nature knows how pretty the daughters are I have no idea.. prior natural selection I guess :blink:

Careful. You are in danger of misrepresenting Darwin. I advise you re-word for the benefit of creationists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Asians on average are more intelligent than Whites, but there is little deviation from the mean so they all tend to be rather uniform. On the other hand Whites deviate far from the mean, so they end up with more geniuses and creatives (Newtons, Bachs, Da Vincis etc.), but on the other hand also produce some of the stupidest people in the world.

There was a programme on the telly a while back about this. I think the main conclusion was that it was nothing to do with race but more to do with culture. Asians and Chinese come from a culture of working very hard - especially academically - so usually do very well.

I suppose it also depends on who you test. It's all very well testing the IQ of 1000 Chinese-American students at UCLA but that says not a great deal about racial intelligence unless you also test 1000 Chinese hill farmers living in the @rse end of no where in Centra China.

I think intelligence tests are mostly BS. Yes, you can probably show that person "X" is very, very intelligent and that person "Y" is a total retard but I think it gets far more difficult towards the centre or where the results are very close. I mean, can you really say that somsone who scores 100 is actually less intelligent than someone who scores 103? I've done a few of the online ones and I wasn't that impressed because they seem to be testing knowledge rather than intelligence. Also, it seemed to get easier once you've done a few tests because you get a feel for what the test is asking you to do.

TThey say intelligence is what you use when you don't know what to do. I don't really know how you go about testing that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting post.

Ive thought this for a long time, and thought it might be a reason why Asians(orientals) are more intelligent and have a bigger brain than whites, but tended to achieve less in absolute terms. Ie, in the last thousand years, why is it that European nations got massive empires and the far east didnt. I

I can answer that question,but you need to understand the (occult) mechanisms by which the power elite play their game.

....a little understanding of geomancy and celestial science will show you how.

...and also why,in terms of the powers that be,there is so much emphasis of shifting as much intellectual and technological knowhow east RIGHT NOW(or to be precise to be completed by 2016)

after that the west is scheduled to be on a downhill slope(excuse the esoteric pun).....with the main drivers of the new era being germany and china(wth russia doing the dirty work to dislodge the US from it's position as superpower.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why did the chinese create things like gunpowder, fireworks and hot-air flight, but not have the creativity or willingness to use them to such an extent of later europeans.

Confucius thats who. confucian values around the 13th and 15th centuries promoted family and staying at home and isolationism. Thus the great Zheng He a muslim Eunuch in Zhu Di's imperial court (he became the legend of Sinbad the sailor ) after several great voyages to Korea and Africa (not the USA though) simply scrapped the grand treasure fleet and decided to be isolationist for centuries. Until a bunch of Europeans arrived in the 16th century with guns and opium.

Emperors would also have book BBQs on a regular basis and cultural revolutions to execute the thinkers who proved to be a threat as dynasties sought at all costs to protect their lineage. Chi Di Kwan who built the great wall as we know it today had the potential to be a fantastic leader and scholar. The emperor saw him as a threat and sacked him and sent an assassin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neoteny as a path for evolution is an interesting concept and I've long mused over it after reading Valerius Geist's book on Mountain Sheep (which have radiated out of Africa across the globe in perhaps a similar way to humans.) There's a very nice hypothesis with some very interesting back up in "The Eternal Child" by Clive Bromhall. Of course like most popular science books there is a lot of speculation, but what stands out is some of the morphological backup to his hypothesis. See also http://www.davidbrin.com/neoteny1.htm for a slightly different take on neoteny in human evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 311 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.