Objection(s) to the Rushton-Lynn Cold Winters Theory

[proibitio]

Context On CWT

The Cold Winters Theory (CWT) endeavors to elucidate the variation in IQ scores observed across different nations. It posits that these disparities can be attributed to differential evolution by means of natural selection within diverse environments. The migration out of Africa led early humans to colonize new biomes characterized by novel challenges and unfamiliar conditions. Consequently, early humans were compelled to adapt their behaviors and acquire new skills essential for survival in these environments. Individuals unable to adapt were less likely to reproduce, resulting in natural selection favoring certain traits. Over time, this evolutionary process engendered phenotypic differences among groups that evolved in disparate environments. Proponents of hereditarianism consider this theory foundational to their viewpoint, asserting that for the observed differences to hold significance, they must be the result of evolutionary processes, particularly those driven by natural selection.

However, despite the contention that natural selection is not a mechanism in itself* (Fodor, 2008; Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini, 2010), it is widely acknowledged that natural selection tends to reduce genetic variation within a given trait (Howe, 1997: 70; Richardson, 2017: 46) . Thus, if the differences in IQ observed between races were attributable to natural selection, we would expect to see a decrease in variability in IQ/intelligence among races, rather than an increase.

Nevertheless, I have previously criticized the "Cold Winters Theory" in discussions on the Looksmax.org Discord server, particularly highlighting its lack of risky and novel predictions, contrary to Lynn's assertions. In this thread, I will present additional arguments against CWT, demonstrating how the theory's foundation is weakened by flawed reasoning and reliance on ad hoc hypotheses to avoid falsification. I will ultimately argue that CWT lacks scientific merit, serving merely as a just-so story that retroactively explains observed phenomena without successfully predicting new evidence.

Lynn's Interpretation of CWT

One of the earliest mentions of the Cold Winters Theory can be traced to Wallace (1864), who articulated ideas that contemporary hereditarians continue to endorse. In 1987, Richard Lynn posited that the selective pressures of cold winters account for the high IQs observed among "Mongoloids" (Asians) (Lynn, 1987). Lynn argues that these higher IQs are the result of adaptations favored by cold environments. He suggests that specific cognitive and behavioral traits evolved in Asians due to these selective pressures. In 1991, Lynn expanded this argument, claiming that surviving in novel environments, particularly those not native to our species, exerted selective pressures that enhanced the IQs of "Caucasoids" and "Mongoloids." These groups, facing cognitively demanding conditions, had to develop skills for constructing shelters, making clothing, creating fire, and hunting. This, according to Lynn, explains the higher intelligence levels compared to Africans. However, despite being an advocate for IQ research, Ian Deary has aptly critiqued Lynn's theory, dismissing it as a just-so story lacking empirical substantiation:

Another review of the thorny issue which Lynn deals with in the first paper may be judged worthwhile if there is a wealth of convincing new evidence, or a Flynn-like (1987) fine-toothcombing of the past evidence. Neither of these objectives is achieved. Therefore, the Pandora’s box has been opened once more, some may say, to no great purpose. What of Lynn’s evolutionary account of the origins of intelligence test score differences between groups? It puts me in mind of Kipling’s Just So stories. When one is more used to examining factor analyses or ANOVA tables the type of evolutionary evidence that is offered here is difficult to evaluate. One suspects that there is an infinite number of more or less plausible historical accounts of the causes of racial differences in IQ test scores, and that all would leave aside uncomfortable facts (like the intelligence needed to exist in hot arid climates). The issue addressed in Lynn’s first paper is difficult enough, but the evidence is far too sparse to be telling the story of how the Eskimo got his/her flat nose. (Deary, 1991: 157)

If the Cold Winters Theory (CWT) were indeed accurate, populations that endured the harshest, coldest conditions should exhibit the highest IQs. However, empirical evidence does not support this claim; Arctic populations have an average IQ of approximately 91, contradicting CWT's predictions. Lynn attempts to address this discrepancy with an ad hoc hypothesis, suggesting that the smaller population size of Arctic peoples limited the occurrence and stabilization of high IQ genetic mutations, unlike in Asians who had a larger population size (56,000 for Arctic people versus 1.4 billion for Asians; Lynn, 2006: 157). According to Lynn, geographic isolation and small population size prevented Arctic populations from developing higher IQs. This explanation is inherently ad hoc—constructed specifically to salvage the theory without independent verification—and exemplifies special pleading, as Scott McGreal’s argues.

The critical issue with the Cold Winters Theory (CWT) is that its conclusion—higher IQs in specific geographic regions—was predetermined, and subsequent reasoning was retroactively applied to identify the causes of the observed differences between groups. This approach, known as reverse engineering, involves deducing the design of a mechanism based on analyzing the tasks it performs. In this context, reverse engineering was used to justify pre-existing conclusions rather than deriving them from empirical evidence. (Buller, 2005: 92). This just so (see what I did there?) happens to be one of Smith’s (2016: 227-228) just-so story triggers:

1) proposing a theory-driven rather than a problem-driven explanation, 2) presenting an explanation for a change without providing a contrast for that change, 3) overlooking the limitations of evidence for distinguishing between alternative explanations (underdetermination), 4) assuming that current utility is the same as historical role, 5) misusing reverse engineering, 6) repurposing just-so stories as hypotheses rather than explanations, and 7) attempting to explain unique events that lack comparative data.

Lynn (1990) endeavored to synthesize gonadotropin levels, testosterone, and prostate cancer within the framework of the theory, contending that diminished fertility rates and heightened parental investment among non-African populations precipitated a transition toward a K-strategy reproductive pattern. This purported shift, posited by Lynn, was purportedly accompanied by a commensurate reduction in testosterone levels, consequently mitigating aggressive inclinations (Rushton, 2000: 263). Nevertheless, such assertion rests upon a fallacious premise suggesting a direct causal link between testosterone and aggression, insinuating that heightened testosterone levels invariably correlate with increased aggression. However, this interpretation misguidedly reverses the cause-and-effect relationship; evidence suggests that aggression precipitates elevated testosterone levels rather than the reverse. Consequently, Lynn's explanatory framework falters under scrutiny.

Rushton subsequently emerges as an advocate for Lynn's purported "contributions to science" (Rushton, 2012). Simultaneously, Rushton lauds Lynn's theory as elucidating the purported evolutionary mechanisms behind the observed phenomenon wherein populations residing in northern latitudes exhibit higher average IQs and larger cranial capacities compared to their counterparts in southern regions (Rushton, 2005), while in a proclamation of grandiosity, Rushton asserts that Lynn's purported pinnacle achievement lies in his endeavor to document global variances in intelligence among racial groups, alongside the analysis of their purported evolutionary trajectories (Rushton, 2012: 855). Rushton not only penned an Amazon review of Lynn’s book but also reiterated his support for Lynn's theories in the white nationalist publication VDare. It is unsurprising that Rushton would advocate for Lynn's work, considering that Lynn's theory serves as a foundational element of Rushton's own r/K selection theory, which we shall now examine.

Cold Winters Theory – Rushton

Commencing in 1985, Rushton initiated arguments asserting the existence of a multitude of traits wherein racial populations purportedly exhibited discernible disparities (Rushton, 1985). In his inaugural book, "Race, Evolution, and Behavior" (Rushton, 1995), Rushton consolidated his assertions, contending that the divergences in these traits among racial categories could be elucidated by the selective pressures that governed survival within respective environments. Rushton and Jensen (2005: 265-266; cf Andrade and Redondo, 2019) advanced the proposition that genetically mediated disparities in IQ scores exist between racial groups, specifically highlighting variations between black and white populations. He posited that one of the primary factors contributing to these discrepancies stemmed from the divergent environmental conditions to which each racial group had been historically exposed:

Evolutionary selection pressures were different in the hot savanna where Africans lived than in the cold northern regions Europeans experienced, or the even colder Arctic regions of East Asians. These ecological differences affected not only morphology but also behavior. It has been proposed that the farther north the populations migrated out of Africa, the more they encountered the cognitively demanding problems of gathering and storing food, gaining shelter, making clothes, and raising children successfully during prolonged winters (Rushton, 2000). As these populations evolved into present-day Europeans and East Asians, the ecological pressures selected for larger brains, slower rates of maturation, and lower levels of testosterone—with concomitant reductions in sexual potency, aggressiveness, and impulsivity; increases in family stability, advanced planning, self-control, rule following, and longevity; and the other characteristics listed in Table 3.

This is where Rushton's r/K selection framework becomes pertinent. He postulated that certain human populations exhibit a greater degree of K-selection than others (Rushton, 1990: 137). Indeed, within Rushton's framework, the notion that certain groups are more K-selected than others implies that these groups may manifest disparate trait values when compared to others. This observation appears to lend support to Rushton's overarching theory. Nevertheless, critiques of Rushton's theory contend that environmental factors could provide an alternative explanation, obviating the necessity to invoke genetic determinants (Gorey and Cryns, 1995) Furthermore, detractors highlight the lack of independent replication of Rushton's findings (Peregrine, Ember and Ember, 2003), casting doubt on the robustness of his theory.

Major Objections to CWT

Objection 1: The crux of the matter lies in the recognition that concepts such as CWT exemplify a paradigm wherein notions and convictions evolve in tandem with contemporary observations and prevailing zeitgeist. Aristotle posited that the ancient Greeks, positioned geographically between Asia and the remainder of Europe, possessed both spiritedness and intelligence, thereby maintaining their freedom. In contrast, he contended that inhabitants of colder regions, such as Europe, lacked intelligence and skill but retained spiritedness, whereas those in Asia were characterized by intelligence yet lacked spiritedness, rendering them susceptible to enslavement. The Greeks, occupying the middle ground, purportedly embodied a balance, akin to Goldilocks' proverbial "just right" scenario, possessing all the favorable traits attributed to various geographic locales while being devoid of their respective disadvantages. Meloni (2019: 42) referenced a Roman officer who asserted that individuals from colder climates were deemed unsuitable for recruitment due to an excess of blood, which was believed to correlate with inadequate intelligence. Conversely, troops hailing from temperate climates were deemed more suitable due to possessing an optimal level of blood, thus ensuring their aptitude for camp discipline (Irby, 2016). This historical account provides compelling evidence of the mutable nature of perceptions regarding intelligence throughout different epochs. It underscores the notion that interpretations of intelligence are contingent upon historical and cultural contexts, subject to shifts over time. Consequently, it substantiates the argument that the concept of "more intelligent people" is contingent and subject to reevaluation based on prevailing beliefs and observations. Furthermore, it suggests that individuals may selectively marshal evidence to support their theories, engaging in a form of inference to the best explanation. Importantly, this perspective implies that an evolutionary psychologist or proponent of IQ theories transported back to antiquity would likely have formulated theories of intelligence that diverged markedly from contemporary paradigms, reflecting the influence of historical context and prevailing beliefs.

The capacity to devise narratives to explicate observations in a manner suggestive of scientific objectivity is indeed conceivable. Arguments posited by Anderson (1991), Graves (2002), and Flynn (2019) contend that climates other than cold ones can foster the selection for higher intelligence. Sternberg, Grigorenko, and Kidd (2005) assert that any observed data can be interpreted through various explanatory frameworks. However, notwithstanding these propositions, the veracity of the CWT remains unsubstantiated due to the absence of independent corroborative evidence. Therefore, there exists no compelling rationale to endorse the CWT as a credible explanatory framework.

Objection 2: If the Lynn-Rushton Cold Winter Theory (CWT) were indeed accurate, one would expect to observe lower variability in IQ scores between white and Asian populations. This expectation is grounded in the widely accepted principle that natural selection tends to reduce genetic variation in traits crucial for survival (Howe, 1997: 70; Richardson, 2017: 46). Within the hereditarian framework, intelligence is considered a trait of significant importance for survival. Therefore, if the hereditarian argument positing the CWT were valid, one would anticipate a diminished range of IQ scores among white and Asian populations compared to black populations. However, empirical evidence does not support this anticipated pattern. Additionally, Bird, 2020 presents arguments against the hereditarian hypothesis, demonstrating the absence of discernible natural selection on cognitive performance among Black and White populations.

Objection 3: For decades, hereditarians have leaned heavily on the concept of heritability as a foundational principle. The premise is that if a trait (denoted as "T") exhibits high heritability, then it is presumed to possess a significant genetic component, implying that genetic factors predominantly account for the observed variance in the trait, as opposed to environmental influences. However, numerous critiques of the heritability concept have emerged (see Moore and Shenk, 2016), casting doubt on its utility for supporting the hereditarian Cold Winter Theory (CWT) and the broader hereditarian hypothesis. It is noted that these heritability estimates often stem from studies plagued by confounding variables, thereby undermining the reliability of the "laws" derived from them. Consequently, the supposed explanatory power of heritability in bolstering hereditarian arguments appears to be considerably weakened.

Objection 4: Rushton and Lynn postulate that Asians exhibit K-selected traits while Africans are characterized by r-selected traits. Rushton correctly observed that Africans contend with endemic and infectious diseases, which he erroneously categorized as r traits. Additionally, he argued that cold winters shaped K-selected traits in Asian and European populations. However, according to the (previously accepted) principles of r/K selection, it would logically follow that Africans are more aptly characterized as K-selected while Asians exhibit r-selected traits. This perspective arises from the notion that groups migrating from their native environments into new ones are relieved from density-dependent constraints (Anderson, 1991: 59). Thus, the traditional r/K selection framework would suggest an inversion of Rushton and Lynn's characterization.

Objection 5: The notion of the irreducibility of mental phenomena to physical processes poses a significant challenge to the premise that psychology, including traits such as intelligence, can be subject to selection pressures. Given that intelligence is conceptualized as a psychological trait, its purported selection via evolutionary mechanisms becomes untenable if it is indeed irreducible to physical processes. This objection not only undermines the Cold Winter Theory (CWT) but also casts doubt on many hereditarian hypotheses that seek to reduce mental states to brain states or genetic factors. Consequently, irreducibility arguments present a formidable obstacle to the viability of hereditarianism as a explanatory framework within evolutionary psychology.

Arguments against CWT

Summarizing the discussions above, several arguments can be derived. Firstly, it is evident that the CWT lacks a substantial evidentiary basis, thereby diminishing its credibility as a scientific framework. Instead, it appears to be predominantly espoused by ideologues rather than being firmly grounded in empirical evidence.

P1: The presence of independent evidence would be expected if the Cold Winter Theory were indeed valid.
P2: Independent evidence supporting the Cold Winter Theory is lacking.
P3: Social and environmental factors provide a superior explanation for the correlation between race and IQ compared to the Cold Winter Theory.
P4: The evidence presented in favor of the Cold Winter Theory, such as Lynn's national IQ data, is deemed fraudulent and lacks scientific rigor.
C: Consequently, it follows that the Cold Winter Theory is false.

Premise 1: This elucidation underscores a fundamental aspect of scientific inquiry: the significance of independent evidence in validating hypotheses. Independent evidence pertains to data or observations that were not utilized in formulating the hypothesis. In the context of the CWT, if it were indeed true, it would necessitate the existence of independent, novel evidence to substantiate its claims. Such evidence would not rely on the original assumptions or data used in constructing the hypothesis. The presence of independent, novel evidence is crucial as it enhances the credibility of a theory by offering additional support from sources not initially considered. Novel evidence, in this context, denotes data or observations that were previously unknown or unforeseen based on existing knowledge or prior observations. Thus, for the CWT to be scientifically valid, there would need to be independent evidence demonstrating a direct causal relationship between intelligence and cold climates.

Premise 2: This explanation challenges the assertion that there exists independent evidence supporting the CWT, according to the accepted definition of "novel, independent evidence."

Premises 3 and 4: The linkage between these two premises is evident: the relationship between latitude and IQ is more adequately explained by factors such as access to education and nutrition. Furthermore, the validity of Lynn's "national IQs" is brought into question, with allegations of fraudulence (Sear, 2022). Consequently, there exists no evidentiary basis to accept Lynn's IQ data, leaving bias and a preconceived conclusion as the primary motivations for their acceptance. This process resembles reverse engineering, wherein the conclusion is predetermined, and arguments are constructed to retroactively support it.

Indeed, the conclusion logically follows: the CWT lacks independent, novel evidence supporting it, rendering its veracity questionable. Consequently, the only rationale for adhering to it appears to be biased thinking against certain groups of people.

P1: The CWT posits that variances in average IQ scores among racial groups can be primarily attributed to distinctions in the severity of the winter climates within which these groups evolved.
P2: The entirety of the substantiating data utilized to bolster the Cold Winters Theory (CWT) relies upon pre-existing datasets, including Lynn's compilation of national IQ metrics and historical temperature archives.
P3: No novel independent evidence has emerged to corroborate the CWT beyond the utilization of pre-existing datasets.
C: Consequently, the CWT lacks novel, independent evidence in its support.

Or

P1: Should new independent evidence emerge in favor of the CWT, it would subsequently enable independent support for the theory.
P2: There exists no novel independent evidence to corroborate the CWT beyond the currently available datasets.
C: Therefore, the CWT cannot be substantiated by any new independent evidence.

These arguments are deemed valid and upheld as sound, drawing upon the discourse presented within this article and in previous scholarly works concerning the Cold Winters Theory (CWT) and the prognostication of novel empirical findings.

Conclusion

Wicherts, Borsboom, and Dolan, 2010 assert that evolutionary narratives are unnecessary for elucidating disparities in IQ among nations. Sears, 2022 contends that Lynn's compilation of national IQ data is fraught with skepticism and should therefore not be relied upon. The proposition put forth by Rushton and Lynn in the Cold Winters Theory (CWT) posits that individuals migrating to colder, more northerly regions were compelled to engage in advanced planning for the winter and to organize hunting expeditions for sustenance. This assertion, however, is deemed untenable, as the necessity for strategic foresight is ubiquitous across all environments. Furthermore, Will et al (2021) make a substantial contribution to this discourse by stating:

Analyses detected no such association of temperature with brain size. … These results suggest that brain size within Homo is less influenced by environmental variables than body size during the past 1.0 Ma.

This finding constitutes a significant blow to the credibility of the Rushton-Lynn Cold Winters Theory. Moreover, anthropological evidence, as presented by (MacEachern, 2006), stands in direct contradiction to the premises espoused by the CWT.

Having demonstrated the inadequacy of the evidentiary foundations of the CWT, it follows logically that maintaining belief in its veracity is untenable. Similar sentiments are echoed by proponents of the theory such as Rushton (2000: 228-231), Jensen (1998: 170, 434-436) and Lynn (2006: Chapters 15, 16, and 17). Given that the primary proponents of the CWT espouse eugenicist ideologies, one may reasonably infer that underlying ulterior motives drive their advocacy for this theory. Furthermore, assertions of "molecular genetic evidence" in support of the CWT falter due to the inherent complexity and irreducibility of mental faculties.

Nonetheless, the belief that cold winters influenced the development of our cognitive faculties and contributed to racial disparities in psychological traits subsequent to the exodus from Africa lacks novel, independent evidence. The absence of time machines renders it impossible to directly ascertain such historical influences and to disentangle correlated traits. Consequently, these considerations lead to the inevitable conclusion that the CWT is merely a narrative constructed around existing data, which was then retroactively employed to justify preconceived notions. Therefore, the CWT stands invalidated.

Rushton, Lynn, Kanazawa (2008, 2012), along with Hart (2009) and Winegard, Winegard, and Anomaly (2020) are characterized as purveyors of narratives devoid of substantive evidence, akin to "just-so stories," given the absence of novel empirical support for their assertions. Kanazawa's assumption of a flat Earth in his 2008 paper, as highlighted by Wicherts et al. (2012), further undermines the credibility of their claims. The critical scrutiny delineated in this thread underscores six formidable objections to the CWT, collectively dismantling its purported foundations. The CWT, lacking the requisite evidentiary support characteristic of scientific hypotheses, is thus relegated to the realm of ideological conjecture rather than empirical science.

*I may create a thread on this and other topics within this that require further context some day.

 

[BitchBoy]

Not a pixel faggot nigger

 

[ShawarmaFilth]

Idk what that shit is but r u still rotting on the cord

 

[proibitio]

Idk what that shit is but r u still rotting on the cord

No, I asked Chrissy for an 80 day ban. I just wanted to write a final thread, since I also plan on leaving this forum too.

 

[proibitio]

@Beau Brummell @97baHater

 

[ShawarmaFilth]

No, I asked Chrissy for an 80 day ban. I just wanted to write a final thread, since I also plan on leaving this forum too.

Why lol this thread is pointless no one knows a thing ahout it

 

[proibitio]

Why lol this thread is pointless no one knows a thing ahout it

Which is why I must share this with the forum.

 

[ShawarmaFilth]

Which is why I must share this with the forum.

Give a summary/tldr for people who cba to research thus

 

[ElTruecel]

Why lol this thread is pointless no one knows a thing ahout it

Cold winter theory = cold climates harder to live in, need intelligence + further planning to survive. It basically supposedly explains the genetic iq differences between races because cold climates required higher iq to survive due to harsh environment but hot ones didn’t.

@Looks234 @murdah @cromagnon @PrinceLuenLeoncur @King Solomon @vermillioncorefan @SadLivwr opinions on cold winter theory

 

[proibitio]

TL;DR: Cold Winters Theory suggests that IQ differences among races stem from adaptations to colder climates, but it lacks solid evidence. Critics argue that it's a biased narrative built on shaky reasoning, with no independent support. Arguments against it include the lack of variability in IQ scores, doubts about heritability, and contradictions in the theory's premises. Ultimately, the CWT is seen as an ideological construct rather than a scientifically sound explanation.

 

[ElTruecel]

Cold winter theory = cold climates harder to live in, need intelligence + further planning to survive. It basically supposedly explains the genetic iq differences between races because cold climates required higher iq to survive due to harsh environment but hot ones didn’t.

@Looks234 @murdah @cromagnon @PrinceLuenLeoncur @King Solomon @vermillioncorefan @SadLivwr opinions on cold winter theory

@Themanletauticel123

 

[cromagnon]

Cold winter theory = cold climates harder to live in, need intelligence + further planning to survive. It basically supposedly explains the genetic iq differences between races because cold climates required higher iq to survive due to harsh environment but hot ones didn’t.

@Looks234 @murdah @cromagnon @PrinceLuenLeoncur @King Solomon @vermillioncorefan @SadLivwr opinions on cold winter theory

Solid theory

 

[WeiWei]

These pseudo-intellectual shitposting retards never fail to confuse me. Like, do you think your shit's impressive?

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

Cold winter theory = cold climates harder to live in, need intelligence + further planning to survive. It basically supposedly explains the genetic iq differences between races because cold climates required higher iq to survive due to harsh environment but hot ones didn’t.

@Looks234 @murdah @cromagnon @PrinceLuenLeoncur @King Solomon @vermillioncorefan @SadLivwr opinions on cold winter theory

I disagree colder climates are wiser to live in that’s why people had time to SIT DOWN and develop. I completely disagree with your statement

 

[proibitio]

These pseudo-intellectual shitposting retards never fail to confuse me. Like, do you think your shit's impressive?

Why do you assume this is a shitpost? I am merely interested on topics such as these, why does that anger you?

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

Solid theory

It’s a retarded theory that goes against reality that tropical climates are far harder to survive in lol

 

[proibitio]

I disagree colder climates are wiser to live in that’s why people had time to SIT DOWN and develop. I completely disagree with your statement

Read the thread.

 

[proibitio]

Solid theory

Read the thread, I address said theory.

 

[proibitio]

Solid theory

I love your Ozean profile picture by the way.

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

Read the thread.

I don’t fucking need 2 I have been debating brainlets on this subject since I was 18…

The truth is Mesopotamia is the worlds first civilisation and any historical and archeologist will agree the reason for them building shit was due to them having met all of the necessary requirements such as plenty FOOD, plenty LAND, and great FERTILLITY and low desiease rate in order for them to have the “Fertile Crescent”

The existence of the first civilisation proves that for civilisation to cultivate you need AN EASY ENVIRONMENT THAG SELECTS FOR HUMAN SLOTHFULLNESS IN ORDER FOR PEOPLE TO SIT DOWN AND SPECIALISE IN SPECIFIC ROLES

 

[cromagnon]

I love your Ozean profile picture by the way.

Thank you bhai

 

[proibitio]

I don’t fucking need 2 I have been debating brainlets on this subject since I was 18…

The truth is Mesopotamia is the worlds first civilisation and any historical and archeologist will agree the reason for them building shit was due to them having met all of the necessary requirements such as plenty FOOD, plenty LAND, and great FERTILLITY and low desiease rate in order for them to have the “Fertile Crescent”

The existence of the first civilisation proves that for civilisation to cultivate you need AN EASY ENVIRONMENT THAG SELECTS FOR HUMAN SLOTHFULLNESS IN ORDER FOR PEOPLE TO SIT DOWN AND SPECIALISE IN SPECIFIC ROLES

Appeal to authority, ad hominem, false clause, and black-or-white fallacy all in one. Quite telling if I do say so myself...

 

[Deleted member 44207]

You don't need a 10,000 word peer reviewed study to figure out that niggers on average are less intelligent than other races

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

Appeal to authority, ad hominem, false clause, and black-or-white fallacy all in one. Quite telling if I do say so myself...

Not an adhomenem in sight.

No false clauses or dilemmas in sight

Not a single black or white falicy.

Now you’re just throwing around nonsensical points and red herrings because you know you cannot defeat the argument I posited. If archeologists and historians belive the reason for the Fertile Crescent being called such due to how easy it is the grow crops farm and have multiple animals with lowest amount of diseases basically heaven on earth then that posits that the cold climate theory is debunked and nonsensical as I jsut mentioned because tropical nations lack great crops, lack great fauna and are abundant in diseases

 

[proibitio]

You don't need a 10,000 word peer reviewed study to figure out that niggers on average are less intelligent than other races

Such a broad and unsupported assertion is a hasty generalization fallacy you know?

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

Such a broad and unsupported assertion is a hasty generalization fallacy you know?

Nigga thinks using “fallacy” statements in every retort to an individual not agreeing with him means he wins the argument

Dude I debate Muslims, gayrhiesrs and many more almsot daily. Trust me you won’t beat me kid and when it comes to history in particular NO

 

[proibitio]

Not an adhomenem in sight.

No false clauses or dilemmas in sight

Not a single black or white falicy.

Now you’re just throwing around nonsensical points and red herrings because you know you cannot defeat the argument I posited. If archeologists and historians belive the reason for the Fertile Crescent being called such due to how easy it is the grow crops farm and have multiple animals with lowest amount of diseases basically heaven on earth then that posits that the cold climate theory is debunked and nonsensical as I jsut mentioned because tropical nations lack great crops, lack great fauna and are abundant in diseases

1. You claim that historians and archaeologists would agree with their assertion about Mesopotamia being the first civilization. And while it's true that expert opinion can carry weight, simply stating that experts agree without providing evidence or arguments to support your claim is an appeal to authority fallacy.

2. "Brainlets"

3. You assert that the reason for the development of civilization in Mesopotamia was due to the environmental conditions providing an easy environment that selects for human slothfulness. Environmental factors certainly play a role in the development of civilizations, but the claim that an "easy environment" leads to civilization solely because people become lazy is an oversimplification and lacks sufficient evidence.

4. You present a binary view that civilization can only arise in environments that "select for human slothfulness." That ignores the complexity of factors that contribute to the development of civilizations and presents a false dichotomy between "easy" and presumably "hard" environments.

Ad hominem, straw man, AtA, false dichotomy, and lack of empirical evidence all in this new response? It is starting to become a challenge to take you serious.

Also, I just realized you're saying CWT is bunk, which I agree with. Maybe if you red the fucking thread or TL;DR even a little you wouldn't be arguing with me.

 

[proibitio]

Nigga thinks using “fallacy” statements in every retort to an individual not agreeing with him means he wins the argument

Dude I debate Muslims, gayrhiesrs and many more almsot daily. Trust me you won’t beat me kid and when it comes to history in particular NO

I never said I won the argument, I am merely highlighting that everybody replying to this has not red a single word of my refutation yet is already proposing things such as what @Themanletauticel123 said.

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

I never said I won the argument, I am merely highlighting that everybody replying to this has not red a single word of my refutation yet is already proposing things such as what @Themanletauticel123 said.

I don’t need to read something I already have seen before numerous times. Did you not fucking read my response?

Your the one throwing around nonsensical falicous statements the only one I agree with is yes I used an appeal to fallacy to combat your appeal to fallacy but the difference is whilst every historian and archaeologist agrees with my point regarding the requirements for civilisation VERY SMALL POOL of scientists agree with You

 

[Deleted member 72630]

It’s a retarded theory that goes against reality that tropical climates are far harder to survive in lol

yeah legit. I’ve read about this regarding deer of the world. In deer living in more tropical climates, there is a tendency towards energy conservation, smaller body sizes, and less investment of resources into flashy features such as high body fat reserves, large brain sizes, large antlers etc. I forgot the term used to class all of these together, but you can see the theme. There is greater competition and less energy easily available.

 

[proibitio]

I don’t need to read something I already have seen before numerous times. Did you not fucking read my response?

Your the one throwing around nonsensical falicous statements the only one I agree with is yes I used an appeal to fallacy to combat your appeal to fallacy but the difference is whilst every historian and archaeologist agrees with my point regarding the requirements for civilisation VERY SMALL POOL of scientists agree with You

I beg of you, please read the TL;DR beause it seems you think I believe CWT.

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

1. You claim that historians and archaeologists would agree with their assertion about Mesopotamia being the first civilization. And while it's true that expert opinion can carry weight, simply stating that experts agree without providing evidence or arguments to support your claim is an appeal to authority fallacy.

2. "Brainlets"

3. You assert that the reason for the development of civilization in Mesopotamia was due to the environmental conditions providing an easy environment that selects for human slothfulness. Environmental factors certainly play a role in the development of civilizations, but the claim that an "easy environment" leads to civilization solely because people become lazy is an oversimplification and lacks sufficient evidence.

4. You present a binary view that civilization can only arise in environments that "select for human slothfulness." That ignores the complexity of factors that contribute to the development of civilizations and presents a false dichotomy between "easy" and presumably "hard" environments.

Ad hominem, straw man, AtA, false dichotomy, and lack of empirical evidence all in this new response? It is starting to become a challenge to take you serious.

Also, I just realized you're saying CWT is bunk, which I agree with. Maybe if you red the fucking thread or TL;DR even a little you wouldn't be arguing with me.

Did I call you a brainlet? Nope did I say it strengthens my argument? NOPE.

whether or not my point regarding Mesopotamia and the historic and Archeological communities opinion on what gives rise to a civilisation doesn’t change or destroy my point. In such debates one must use authoritative sources to verify and support their claims which I have used.

I NEVER SAID ONLY, I simply said that civilisation to prosper in the way the faggots on this fourm think it does features specific criterion to be met and then gave an example. I can use another one being Mesoamerica if you want?



JFL are we on the same team…………
I threw no strawmans let’s get that str8 nor did I state a false dichotomy or dilemma. I was replying to the CWT argument and using the correct formula to show that the historic and archeological community vehemently deny this theory posited by APPEAL TO AUTHORITIES from a small pool of scientific usually with bias agendas

But if we are on the same page why didn’t you jsut say this… if you read my comment you’ll assetain rhat I’m saying there’s too many variables that are responsible for civilisation that’s why it sprang up in 3 places in the world. BUT there’s one thing they all have in common RIVERS. Make of that what you will but even in SSA the msot successful civilisations were those by the river like Mali Ghana, Bakongo and Egypt

 

[proibitio]

Read.

 

[proibitio]

Bump, I stress that the people of this forum must read this.

 

[ElTruecel]

Bump, I stress that the people of this forum must read this.

@Jason voorhes will

 

[ElTruecel]

@Jason voorhes will

Fuck I meant @Jason Voorhees

 

[proibitio]

Final bump. See you some day, looksmax.org!

 

[wishIwasSalludon]

Final bump. See you some day, looksmax.org!

no one takes Lynn and rushton seriously anyways

 

[wishIwasSalludon]

Cold winter theory = cold climates harder to live in, need intelligence + further planning to survive

It’s the opposite, Africas environment is more harsh, disease is everywhere, deadly animals even the herbivores in Africa will fuck you up not just predators

Half of the year Africa is as dry as a desert the other half it rains so much that it floods

It’s why sapiens evolved for greater intelligence and cooperation while Neanderthals not so much

 

[bourgeoizyzz]

didn't read, but the low IQ of american indians is problematic for this theory

 

[widdi]

The cold winters theory is more of a “just right” winters theory: winters cold enough to facilitate a longer life history strategy while being warm enough for agriculture to be feasible. Lower black variability is due to the floor effects. A larger proportion of blacks score so low that lots of IQ tests cannot discern that well between a 70 and 72 IQ person (because the vast majority of people don’t test in that range). Also, natural selection can happen at the same time as stabilizing selection. For example: women may prefer people of average intelligence over smarts non NT autists even if smarter non NT autists are less likely to do stupid shit that gets them killed earlier.

 

[Mr_Bombo_mogs]

Explain why europe wasnt relevant globally until a retareded cumskin spaniard decided to go to America

 

[Lethbridge]

Enjoyed reading, but you could do with writing more concisely

 

[Vander]

Necroposting but idgaf: 1) Inuk IQ falls short in comparison to estimates because firstly, early research didn't account for the Flynn effect and secondly, Inuk populations did not evolve under conditions of agricultural civilization which would additionally select for IQ. 2) The type of selection acting on cognitive ability in colder environments relates to dimensions of personality that affect social organization rather than bold and varied mental abilities demanded from the environment. I can't speak much on the data (To be frank, I don't think anybody is going to bother to peruse outdated pieces of data), but it's very clear that measured mean IQs of different races across the world reflects the same conclusion. Life-history evolution can explain more and in some ways is just the bigger picture of what cold-winters advanced to explain.

 

[bennyben23]

Most people here poses their arguments on historical and archeological evidences and tend to overlook the sheer irreducibility of psychological traits. Objection 5 by far poses the strongest and biggest threat to any researches regarding evolutionary psychology.
8/10 read