Message from @vaultright

Discord ID: 329067656055619584


2017-06-19 00:05:51 UTC  

how long is this?

2017-06-20 06:52:36 UTC  

In fact, a case
where a person of one nationality is closer genetically to someone
of a distant nationality than to his or her own compatriots
never happens. If you’re Swedish, every Swede (not counting
recent immigrants) is genetically closer to you than any person
in Japan.

2017-06-21 08:50:53 UTC  

For whatever reason, a lot of people think that regression to the mean will keep happening to someone’s descendants until they research original population’s mean. This is not true. Once the next generation inherits an additive genetic advantage in some trait it keeps it. Their kids and their grand kids will continue to have it.

2017-06-23 04:26:02 UTC  

Can anyone here please link to evidence that hapas are more likely to have mental health problems?

2017-06-23 04:30:45 UTC  
2017-06-23 04:33:02 UTC  

Thanks

2017-06-23 04:33:37 UTC  

He's arguing "no it's actually different if they are specifically Japanese-German hapas"

2017-06-23 04:33:47 UTC  

What a retard

2017-06-23 04:34:35 UTC  

Because they'll be the master race or something

2017-06-23 04:34:36 UTC  

@asdf this applies universally

2017-06-23 04:35:06 UTC  

Objectives. This study compared the health and risk status of adolescents who identify with 1 race with those identifying with more than 1 race.

2017-06-23 04:35:14 UTC  

Conclusions. Adolescents who self-identify as more than 1 race are at higher health and behavior risks. The findings are compatible with interpreting the elevated risk of mixed race as associated with stress.

2017-06-27 00:48:25 UTC  

speaking of which

2017-06-27 00:48:41 UTC  

two idiots with no expertise are mad at Rage After the Storm

2017-06-27 00:51:28 UTC  

@vaultright apologize for the tag but misinfo annoys me

2017-06-27 00:51:38 UTC  

and I want people to know this will be happening

2017-06-27 01:17:22 UTC  

kraut and jeff are about to go full steven jay gould on us @The Goat

2017-06-27 01:42:09 UTC  

I'd like to see what the have to say lol

2017-06-27 01:44:47 UTC  

Probably radical centrist nonsense

2017-06-27 02:09:20 UTC  

if you want a taste of Holiday (it seems like his thing, just using Kraut's platform) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUs2ZdLksSc&t=52s

2017-07-08 00:51:17 UTC  

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/313472492918538243/333047354565459979/image.png

2017-07-08 00:51:23 UTC  

I think iowa is a good place to live

2017-07-08 01:13:16 UTC  

Not very scenic compared to other Midwest states, but probably the most conservative.

2017-07-10 04:19:34 UTC  

Dr. Sakaluk,
My roommate had some reading assigned to him in class and I decided to read the article as well. I felt like some of the claims that it made were wrong and I wanted your opinion. Below is a quote from the article.
“There is no biological basis for classifying race according to skin color instead of body form—or according to any other variable, for that matter. All that exists is variability in what people look like—and the arbitrary and culturally specific ways different societies classify that variability. There is nothing left over that can be called race. This is why race is a myth.”

It’s my understanding that we can almost exactly classify people, surely not based on some phenotype but based on things like haplogroups and mitochondrial DNA. Putting people into a "Race" is surely a shallow classification but it could be done. Is this incorrect? This article later goes on to talk about how Americans believe that an Avocado is a vegetable because they eat it in salad but a Brazilian will tell you it’s a fruit because they eat it with sugar; and that just like this example cultural differences change the perspectives of people. This still doesn't change the fact that an Avocado is a fruit. I feel like this article conflates a lot of scientific topics. Specifically saying that simply because there is no accurate way to classify people based on phenotype that there is no way to classify them at all. Am I wrong?

2017-07-11 17:01:28 UTC  

I've gotten to a point where debating people on this has become tiresome. I've just become smug and sarcastic. If you're debating someone about race realism ask them to describe the process of Evolution to you. Ask them to describe the specific selection pressures that confer adaptations to mammals and how they work. If a person doesn't understand the biological principle of Adaptive Radiation then debating them will literally go nowhere.

2017-07-11 17:03:44 UTC  

I've realized the most vocal people discussing and pushing the (((Narrative))) that we are all the same have no idea what they are talking about.

2017-07-11 17:05:12 UTC  

In spite of all that

2017-07-11 17:05:17 UTC  

I can't tell you how much I enjoyed speaking with you. I will be out-of-town for the next month, but I definitely want to get together with your group later in the Fall.


Thanks for sending the article. I know Pigliucci through science, and in fact, he reviewed parts of one of my books.


Doug Whitman

2017-07-11 17:05:37 UTC  

that's the e-mail i recieved from Whitman

2017-07-11 22:34:03 UTC  
2017-07-12 01:57:18 UTC  

Regression Happens Once

For whatever reason, a lot of people think that regression to the mean will keep happening to someone’s descendants until they research original population’s mean. This is not true. Once the next generation inherits an additive genetic advantage in some trait it keeps it. Their kids and their grand kids will continue to have it.

Were this not true, evolution would be impossible. Every time a mutation resulted in a genetic change in a trait the next few generations would simply regress back to where the trait was before. Evolution happens, and so regression to the mean clearly does not work this way.

Let’s imagine that my height is 100% the result of a new additive mutation that makes people 50% further, in a positive direction, from their sexes mean height than average. Let’s also assume that my mate has the same new mutation. We are the only two people who have it. We will both give that mutation our kids. They will be just as tall as us. After all, they have the same genes that made us tall. There is nowhere else for the genes to go. Thus, no regression to the mean happens, right?

Well, yes and no. Yes, my kids are just as far from the original population’s height mean as I am. However, the population’s mean height has changed. Thanks to the new mutation being given to my kids, the population’s mean height has risen. Thus, the distance between my kids height and the population mean is less than the initial distance between my height and the population mean was. So, there is a sense in which, as the mutation continues to be spread across the population, everyone will return to “the mean”. But it will be a new mean, and that is not regression to the mean.

2017-07-13 08:08:31 UTC  

Catholicism is the third position of religion https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/17576356/

2017-07-15 13:08:40 UTC  

so it marries volk with loyalty to God?