today I started a list: things I'll do when I'll have a lot of money.
I understood how used I am to being so close to poverty when I wrote stuff like a 20 bucks bluetooth speaker and a set of screwdrivers.
🇳🇱
@arteteco the difference between a rich person and a poor person is that a rich person spends most of their time trying to think of ways they could spend/invest money they don't have yet, a poor person thinks up ways they will spend money they don't yet have :)
Though I think this applies a bit farther above the poverty line than you are dealing with too. Obviously you gotta cover the basic needs first. but someone told me that once and it stuck with me.. how you spend (in your head) the money you dont have yet says everything about your financial future.
@freemo I don't think I understood this, a rich person spends time thinking of ways to invest and the poor on ways to spend, you mean?
@arteteco Pretty much yes.. basically how you have mentally ear marked the money you dont have yet whether it be mentally earmarked as a means to create some new company or project, or on indulgences.. basically as you say investment vs personal spending.
@freemo Oh, I see now, makes sense. I don't have a rich future ahead of me, it seems =D
I think in the US you people are more attuned to that kind of entrepreneurship and personal economic growth, which is something I appreciate and I should learn from.
To be sure, as long as I have the basics and a bit more I'm alright, I'm not complaining, was just playing with my mind 😁
I dunno, I think america has become the HQ for ideological quests in many ways. I generally see americans as being extremists in everything. Most americans are radically ideological, while others dont care much at all about ideological quests, there is very little middle ground.
Contrast that with europe where most people tend to be centrist with a small minority at the ideological extremes.
that has not at all been my expeirnce as someone who lives in both america and europe. Though it is what you hear most often.
The leftists in america in my experience are **far** more extremist than anything I've ever seen in europe. In fact most europeans I know who have spent any real time in america tend to mock american leftists for their absurdity. Same is true for our right leaning people, also generally considered extreme.
@amerika I'm not sure, I don't think I know enough about the US to speak, either by statistics or by personal experience. From the biased internet view, US seems more "ideologist" than most countries I know, arguing a lot about principles. If the matter was what works and what not, I'd see very different political debates, more based on science and facts
In my view, it's likely hitting all fields
The need to "publish or perish" has a high cost, and much research being pushed through is cherry-picked and/or filtered.
Still, peer review and others reproducing hard-science should continually preen the knowledge base, if it works right.
there is an expectation that you know certain theories and schools of though before you go onto more obscure or complex ones for sure. but that isnt dogma. Studying a thing doesnt inherently create dogma for the thing.
I study religion in some depth and while there is plenty floating around in the way of dogma when it comes to religion I have never adopted that dogma because I only study the topic, I dont adopt the faith.
I also never experienced teachers pushing too much dogma. Generally they care if you prove your point using logic and data, they dont force your conclusions. Most teachers not just accept dissenting thought they encourage it and want you to try to disprove theories, they even tend to promote projects where you attempt to do so.
the only reason scientific thought tends to align is because we have all went through the science and tried to disprove it and ultimately found we were wrong and could not.
Not sure that is a great example.. Your not talking so much about dogma or wasted careers as you are talking about observing scientific progress where competing ideas and theories are over time refined and confirmed.
@TradeMinister
I am very familiar with it. Individuals have wrong theories all the time, and thats how science is suppose to work, thats how we learn we are wrong and ultimately what is correct.
And every generation, we find out that settled science from the previous was nonsense.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-industry-shifted-blame-to-fat.html
Sometimes funding can derail science and create some issues, no doubt.. A prime example of that is the whole autism vaccine nonsense where basically someone paid a bunch of money to a small minority of crooked scientists to produce a easily debunked paper. Even though the whole of the scientific community quickly rejected the paper its very existence was used as fodder by some for years to come. So yes a person with some money can certainly use psudo-science to cause some harm.
But these sorts of situations never get very far, they certainly dont pass any comprehensive peer review, and generally is not what we see from the majority of the scientific community.
Lots of areas are not explored because they are politically incorrect.
Let's look at IQ research.
There has been a great deal of research around IQ, even going so far as to investigate IQ differences among cultures we think of as different races, alot of that research is ongoing. Better IQ tests designed to be suited for tribal cultures with little contact with the outside world have been developed over the years for exactly that reason.
The issue is simply certain assertions have been made so often in the past and debunked so thuroughly, and almost always done under extreme bias, that most scientists arent going to rehash the same old nonsense unless someone actually comes up with a compelling high quality science, which is rarely the case in certain areas.
Every once in a while I come across some moron with a clearly racial bias trying to argue blacks are inherently lower IQ than whites, and every time when i give them the time and effort to review the evidence of their claim it is completely laughable the lack of evidence and the amount of bias they employed to collect it. Obviously when 99% of people arguing a particular point are always crackpots even if there is a valid point somewhere among them it isnt going to as easily get attention. Extraordinary claims take extraordinary evidence.
Hard to say. I mean we see studies that suggest black people have genetic deficiencies other races do not all the time. for example it is well known and established science that blacks have a much higher incidence of sickle cell anemia than non-blacks. Despite this effectively looking like they are genetically inferior in that regard, and thus would be something you might think couldn't get published, it tends to be free published and fairly well accepted science.
The reason such studies stand little chance of getting published isnt so much about the biases in the industry, its about the fact that we have tested the hypothesis for over a 100 years in great depth and never once have found anything to support that assertion. So naturally its not something you will see getting published unless there is some pretty solid and reproducible data, and there never is.
If I can chip my humble 50 satoshis on this, African people have way higher genetic diversity than the rest of humankind, not having experienced the bottleneck from getting out of Africa.
It's easier, therefore, to find higher diversity of problems too, and the sampling can wildly affect the results of any research. Talking about "black people" or Africans is really like putting together all the rest of humankind, papuasians, native americans, latins, australian aborigenal people etc, and say "see, they have this and that".
My main point is, we can't talk about "African people" as a group and pretend it makes sense.
This is something that until more recent genetic discovery was not well known, so a lot of studies even from a recent past have a huge bias in that sense
I think the Mercatore projection we oftentime use, that distorts the areas far from the equator, can give a wildly wrong idea of the size of Africa. Africa is huge.
I'll attach a video demonstrating the real size of countries, when we remove the UTM distortion
@arteteco How does this arrive at the "correct" shapes at the end? It's still a projection of a portion of a sphere's surface onto a plane, so distortion is inevitable.
Equal-area projections are a thing, so you can get correct sizes - but AFAIK it's not possible to get a projection where distances between all pairs of points are correct.
@khird you can have a projection where distances between pair of point are correct, but in order to do that you have to abandon the shape.
To get the real size you can do many things, not sure what they did here, but you could for example use the mercatore projection, which is a cylindrical one, and make it tangent to the area you are considering, than move to the next one. We usually have it tangent to the equator, that is why is not much distorted over there.
It's like having a series of local projections, instead of a global one
Hope it makes sense, I don't usually talk about this stuff in English =D
> you can have a projection where distances between pair of point are correct
I don't think this is right, in general. You can have a projection where the distance from a fixed point, to any other arbitrary point, is correct. But in general, you can't have a projection where you pick two arbitrary points and expect the distance between them to be correct.
Take for instance the area bounded by the Greenwich Meridian, the Equator, and 90W. This is a "triangle" in that it's bounded by three "straight" (i.e. geodesic) lines, which intersect in pairs at three distinct points (0N0W, 0N90W, and the North Pole). But all three intersections are at right angles, which isn't possible for a planar triangle. So how could you end up with a projection where this is the "correct shape"?
@khird here of course you don't have correct distances: USA is not that far from Mexico! They are just correct **inside** the country
Yea, you could literally fit the following countries into Africa and **still** have space left over.
* China
* USA
* India
* Mexico
* Peru
* France
* Spain
* Papua New Guinea
* Sweden
* Japan
* Germany
* Norway
* Italy
* New Zealand
* United Kingdom (yes all of it, ireland, england, wales, the whole lot)
* Nepal
* Bangledesh
* Greece
I think it has always been known that there were five major races in Africa.
Our ancestors distinguished among them, which is why you had terms like "hottentot" and "pygmy."
While that certainly hints to acknowledgment of the genetic diversity of the people of Africa, in reality while race itself is a valid scientific concept it is not a discrete notion that is countable. There isnt a specific number of races nor can one person be said to be of a different race than any other. It is a spectrum and from a scientific perspective the best we can really say is, on a sliding scale, how similar are two people in terms of their genetic origin.
With that said, my comment goes a bit off topic and its not all that relevant to the main convo.
I disagree. There are four root races and many ethnic groups, all combinations of those root races.
while your certainly welcome to hold any personal opinions you want, regardless of if it has reasonable evidence to back up the claim or not, simply saying you disagree and stating what you beleive isnt really much of an argument for what the established evidence says.. you'd have to actually provide some evidence or argument to make a position like that useful to others for consideration.
It's commonly acknowledged.
On the other hand, it seems you're presenting a bunch of stuff without "evidence."
And we know that modern "science" doesn't publish any, sooo...
Cant publish evidence about something that has no evidence to support it.
As for how common the opinion is, thats not really all that relevant when there is no evidence to back it up.
I'm not quite sure where you get four races. I count Asians, Caucasians (I refer to them together as 'Eurasians' despite the English useage of it) and Africans. You can assert that Native Americans have been separate from other Asians long enough to have quasi-speciated if you want, or not.
You can talk about any group that has something in common. For example, we say "humans do X or Y"
He never said you cant talk about africans as a group, in some respects you can.. but as he pointed out talking about africans as a group is such a huge biodiverse group that it would be like asians, indians, russians, and europeans as all one group and making generalizations about them. Sure you can get away with that some of the time, but with a group that diverse more often than not it will be far too general to be useful.
So in reality there are not three or four subspecies, there are two: sub-Saharan Africans and the recent descendants of Africans imported as livestock, and literally everyone else.
You clearly have no clue what the technical definition of sub-species is then, which is about what I'd expect from you to be honest.
Blacks don't just fail in comparison to Whites, where one could whine about slavery forever and I'm sure you would;
they fail in comparison to everyone, including Indios who were also enslaved and cruelly oppressed.
you've offered what now? The only thing ive seen you do is make vague references to assumptions you've made that have long since been thoroughly debunked by the scientific community with mountains of evidence. you havent provided a single piece of valid evidence, or even invalid evidence for that matter.
Literally the only thing you've contributed is racist nonsense with no evidence to back any of it up.
When confronted with facts, all you and yours can do is whine about your feelings, launch ad hominem attacks, and try to suppress the facts.
'Attempts to fully discredit his most famous book, 1994's "The Bell Curve," have failed for more than two decades now. This is because they repeatedly miss the strongest point of attack: an indisputable—albeit encoded—endorsement of prejudice.'
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/the-real-problem-with-charles-murray-and-the-bell-curve/
If you say so. Once you bother trying to actually share "facts" rather than random racist bullshit maybe then we can see if your statement is true or not.
I know your not too bright and all, but you might want to try not jumping into a thread where im talking and tagging me every few minutes.
What a moron, that would be like you following someone around everywhere, interjecting into their conversatiosn, and then when they reply going "Oh em gee, why wont you go away"... lol you can go away now, get your wish (and mine).
Yea ok there shit for brains. You do know we can all see that is bullshit because the first name in the list of respondents is always the author of the status you hit reply to (unless explicitly edited). Not to mention its pretty obvious your talking dirty to me. You are addressing me and talking directly at me right now dumb ass.
My god how do you even dress yourself in the morning.
LOL and your still tagging me... you are literally following me around, tagging me, and asking me questions, as you just did, and then are dumb enough to go "herp derp why are you talking to meeeeeeee?". LOL.
I'd hate to meet the parents that slithered out of the bottom of the gene pool and made you.
BTW, if one actually reads Murray's work (which no liberal would ever admit doing), his core conclusion is that retards do badly, and white retards do just as badly as Black retards, so one could (and liberals no doubt would if they read it) twist it into an indictment of White trash, who despite not having alleged racism to contend with, generally live much like Black trash.
'“The Bell Curve” and Its Critics
In November 1989, Richard Herrnstein and I agreed to collaborate on a book that, five years later, became The Bell… '
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/charles-murray/the-bell-curve-and-its-critics/
hahahah, he thinks he is high IQ... how cute. This is some first rate kruger-dunning syndrome right here.
Husky_1604165364724_DKJKWQCTHF.…
Husky_1604165423739_LUJELC8S68.…
Nah, you are far too insignificant to be comparable to them in the least. Just an insignificant, grumpy, and not too bright, racist fool, little more.
Not ad honimen when its literally true.
To quote him from earlier in the conversation " I just love it when they argue all races are identical despite obvious empirical facts like smart Negroes being about as rare as stupid North Asians."
https://freespeechextremist.com/objects/03cac52d-1632-48e3-b799-afd4cef4fe7a
I didnt address the fact that it was wrong. I said it directly demonstrated the qualities I accused Trade of.
You are actually right in that I am a racist, meaning I believe the same laws of genetics and differentiation apply to humans that apply to for example dogs, wolves etc which are all Canids and can interbreed, but have huge variation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_breed
Using the term 'racist' as an ad hominem attack works in Jewish-controlled clownworld🤡, but not so well here.
And it also makes you look silly. If you're as smart as you apparently claim to be, one would hope you would have realized that by now. I would with respect suggest that you do yourself a disservice (or 'insult yourself' as some might put it where I live) and would be better served in sticking with facts and fact-based opinions.
You can just cut to the chase and say "I hate you, you say bad things" but it seems like we're a largely impersonal bunch here and really don't much care about stuff like that
But that's just my opinion, and I haven't been here long.
Let's see, North Asian average is somewhere around 110 and African (Negroid) average is somewhere around 80-90.
@amerika @mystik @TradeMinister @freemo @manarock
do you have a source for it? I'm not in the psychology field, so I am not very up to date with researches
It does not focus on race at all, but does show studies that human breeds perform differently on.
Just to clarify this dude (who has been excessively racist with his comments earlier in this thread) uses words like "breed" and "subspecies" in a way that is completely ignorant of the scientific definition of those terms. Apparently he things black people are a different "subspecies" from humans and now he is calling them a different "breed"... I wouldnt really trust much of what he says considering he hasnt even come to a point where he understands the most basic terminology.
Subspecies just means a different variant, like "cultivar."
Not really. Cultivar is only used for plants and is intended for plants that underwent an artificial selection for human use. They do not have to have significant genetic diversity as the term has a very applied meaning, so you jest need the phenotype to be different to give the "cultivar" status.
Subspecies is more general, you don't usually use it for artificially selected organisms.
There is a lot of debate on where to set the line, and the last word is by convention always the one of the ICZN (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)
This as far as science is involved. "Race", for example, is not a valid taxonomic group, as it's mainly use for applied zootechnical reasons (such as milk cows, or egg hens, even selected dogs), and shouldn't be used outside of that field
No a variety from a cultivar is most certainly not a sub species and is explicitly recognized as a category that exists BELOW subspecies.
I haven't even bothered to look it up, since clearly a supergenius 'Data Scientist' (whatever that is) must be right:
https://jeffreyfreeman.me/
But for communication such as it may be among us mere all-too-humans, I'm using it in exactly the same sense as 'breeds' when referring to other animals, and am henceforth mending my sinful ways by deprecating 'subspecies' and 'races' (which WTF does that even mean unless it decends from say the latin root for Spanish 'raiz', "root"[recursion warning!]) as "breeds" of humans, precisely like breeds of other animals.
@arteteco
Well said, agreed. Even from a non genetic standpoint anyone who has ever though "African" was some sort of singular race and culture is clearly ignorant of the reality.
Tunesians for example clearly have very different physical, cultural, and genetic qualities than someone from Nigeria. They dont even look similar, let alone what else.
@manarock @amerika @TradeMinister