We're more likely to encounter high IQ Jews outside Israel, for instance, because higher IQ people tend to navigate a variety of circumstances more easily, and often have more widely marketable skills and expertise.

Diamond ignores a lot.

Faulk goes into that, too. Some of it is admittedly speculation on the part of Faulk, but almost everything Diamond said was speculation.

He starts from the position of assuming that the Papua people are more or less equivalent to western whites, and then comes up with a bunch of conjecture to explain why they had different outcomes.

Hell, he even seems to entertain the possibility that Papua are *superior* to western whites.

Geography is important. But it also influences the selection for phenotypes. This is undeniable.

Geography will both impact what behaviors a population will adopt to survive and thrive in a given environment, but it will also impact what gets passed on genetically.

I don't recall if he cited that.

There are heritable trait considerations for who will be the best canoe builders, though.

More specifically, it would select *against* traits which would be an obvious impairment.

From what i can tell from scanning through his sources, it looks like Faulk is mostly referencing the domestication arguments.

Crops and beasts of burden.

Most of us *don't* function well in this environment.

Hell, there are phenotypes we're perpetuating now who couldn't even do the whole agriculture thing consistently.

And it's largely due to scientific strides and mandatory charity that these people still breed at competitive rates and have sufficiently low mortality for population growth.

It's not too short. Especially when we're talking about very fine, small differences. It can be as simple as changing from being just smart/disciplined enough to grow your own food, to just a little too dumb/impulsive.

And much of the change isn't due to individual populations themselves having a dramatically different ratio of traits, but from them being out-reproduced by *other* populations with different traits.

A single year is enough time for an entire phenotype to go extinct, depending on how aggressive the pressures.

No, even in humans.

If entire species can go extinct in short intervals of time, certainly entire phenotypes can.

How?

First off, who is arguing that for ramifications to be felt, a trait must be dominant? Second, you can easily make it the dominant trait by aggressively eliminating every organism which doesn't carry it. Third, we're talking global populations, as well as national populations. Not just in terms of differences in raw reproductive rates, but also dramatic changes in *where* those populations are *located.*

But, let's say for the sake of argument, we're talking about 1/3 of the population of a geographic region replacing the other 2/3 of the population two and a half times over the course of 600 or so years.

Which is what Faulk is arguing occurred in northern europe.

While, simultaneously, about 2% of the population is culled for criminality, every generation.

wtf?

that's not intelligent design

assuming all human populations, regardless of pressures, will be identical after at least tens of thousands of years of general isolation in different environments, now *that's* intelligent design

No it doesn't.

He's basically just arguing what he thinks happened. That the rich effectively outbred the poor in certain regions, very aggressively, and that the most criminal elements were aggressively removed from the gene pool over an extended period of time.

The reality is, this same phenomenon was also probably occurring with American blacks, up until around the Civil Rights era, where that culling of violent elements was dramatically reduced, and resources progressively redistributed to sustain their poor.

No, you're wrong. Evolution is *always* happening.

Because the distribution of traits in a population isn't *static*

Yes, and "gradually" can be very relative. Saying that for any trait of consequence it must take millions, or even tens of thousands of years is absurd. When we evaluate the mankind as a single population, its proportion of traits has transformed *absurdly* over the past 100 years.

Most of his argument is is involving the distributions of traits, not the adoption of entirely new traits.

He's not saying, "we can develop laser eyes in a hundred years"

he's saying, traits which already exist, can be dramatically altered in frequency by selective pressures

He's saying something which is demonstrably *true*

The evolution of *new* traits, requires an extraordinarily long time. The change in the distribution of *existing* traits, can occur very quickly.

You're literally arguing against the proportion of traits being subject to the proportion of individuals in a population with those traits.

I hope you eventually realize how dumb that sounds.

Maybe someday.

This is basic bitch selective breeding shit. Of all the people in the world who are too dumb for animal husbandry, I didn't expect one to be a biologist.

It would vary by trait and circumstance.

Except that it has happened.

Look at how dramatically the face of agriculture can change in a relatively shot period of time, or dog breeds. They have something in common, it's a consequence of aggressive deliberate human selection. Mankind is, itself, subject to human selection.

And we're not even necessarily talking about a specific population adopting new traits, but just changing the ratios of traits.

That's like saying, "there's already scottish terriers, let's make more of them"

you're acting is if this is something unfathomable

Apparently *you* don't understand fucking MATH.

No wonder the college system is in the shitter. Someone can legit go through 6 years and not understand this concept? I'm in awe. Goodnight, sir.

Better call evolution guys, according to Jym, math is cancelled.

You have to evaluate the comparative advantage vs disadvantage. As well as the costs. How much more likely is someone to die before reproducing if they'e lactose intolerant? Is someone going to force you to drink nothing but milk for your entire adult life?

Maybe some of it. But almost certainly not all of it. But then, if we're talking about specific regions which experienced dramatic demographic shifts from high violence populations, it's more likely that it was genetic.

For instance, taking 60,000 Somalis and putting them into a Midwestern town.

that calorie intake factor would have to presume the alternative from a specific food source is lethal starvation, or malnutrition to the point of primary or secondary infertility

Are somalis genetically identical to the dutch descended natives?

You'd probably be surprised how little calories is survivable. And how many sources there are in many environments.

Especially if you're not surrounded by a concrete jungle, and are supporting a relatively small population.

And yes, starvation was a big concern. But milk wasn't the only food source, nor was it free of costs.

What exactly *are* you arguing? I'm just making the case that lactase persistence isn't a universally critical point of survival. Because it isn't.

There's also, as far as I can tell, no aggressive selection mechanism for its *elimination*

What is the argument then? Is it based on how quickly the trait proliferated in pastoral cultures?

In order to evaluate how typical this is, and whether it represents the absolute range of the transformation/adoption of traits, we'd need some kind of metric of how much more often people who weren't lactose tolerant *died* before reproducing. Or their relative fertility and mortality rates.

Do we have those?

Comparing a single food source to the entire economy? And you're saying that a single food source should win out as the more exceptional selective pressure?

Because that's what Faulk is arguing. That the economic pressures selected for people who were, shockingly, more effective at navigating market systems for their benefit. So, traits like delayed gratification, long term planning, and anticipating the demands of others, would be very useful, and the subset of the population who exhibited those traits would stand to benefit more significantly from virtually every industry involved in that market.

Even assuming that over this period of time, all that happened is that the distribution of traits moved from an aggregate which just barely couldn't sustain a decentral market economy, to one which just barely could, this would have a tremendous impact.

Furthermore taking into account the active role the church often played in condemning and discouraging certain activities.

Hell, even the aggressive policing against consanguinity among commoners certainly played a role.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/8RBJV9J3vCc/maxresdefault.jpg

https://geneticliteracyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/8-9-2018-silver_fox_cub.jpg

There's also the factor of manorialism, and how the lords would administrate their peasants and serfs, favoring certain characteristics, and hard work. And this would be done for generations.

except Belgium, which is basically a non-country

https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/459482878112301060/607101641237200897/464017838_41829.jpg

I'm fine with Jews having a homeland. I'm not fine with Jews having *my* homeland.

I don't live in Palestine, nor am I talking about Palestine.

imo, they should have set up in Madagascar instead, but I'd take, "Jews can have Israel" over the current situation, certainly.

Encourage black men to rape them.

It's not really rape

There's legit a segment from Morrakiu, the dude who does "The Merchant Minute" where he argues, ironically, for supporting certain Liberal policies, because they result in conclusions that benefit the alt-right. It's called "agreeing with Liberals for all the wrong reasons"

It's not really a sincere argument most of the time, but rather an illustration of how much liberal policies actually fuck over liberal constituents more than if the far right won.

the left will never really be convinced by this argument, not only because it comes from evil right wingers, but because their definition of victory is pretty much just defined by how miserable they can make those they don't like, while extracting gibs from them

even if it makes them miserable, also

https://youtu.be/H2VBiN-VwjQ

was trying to find the song he did

but ended up finding this

https://archive.org/details/youtube-zV07HOYLzAY

here's an example of the segment

This is probably one of the examples a more sincere argument

seem to be a lot more sincere arguments than I remember

I think the more ironic joke arguments were in the song he did by the same name

https://archive.org/details/youtube-MRwww9IOOUo

His universal healthcare argument is pretty shitty, because he doesn't account for how much of the expense of the US system is a consequence bearing the cost of much of the world's medical R&D, as well, as the high cost of our medical training compared to many other countries due to the regulatory capture of licensing. Nor does he acknowledge how the difference between the US and Canadian expenses my be a product of the dramatically different demographics. He uses, of all examples for revising the system, Maine, which is very white, and therefore a very bad example of what would likely happen. He's also naively optimistic of the capacity for governments and cartels to surrender funding they've already secured just because they don't need it anymore.

Because most of them probably don't expect to be the ones paying the reparations

It's a moral hazard issue. You take more consideration into foolish ideas if you expect them to cost you personally, or to cost people you like.

It is somewhat reassuring to see that a quarter of blacks also realize it's bullshit

Honorary citizen of Sowelltopia, confirmed.

lol, even the slim majority of democrats are like, "WTF?"

oh