patrick.net

Patrick says

Lol, another truth that may not be spoken.

I agree - the truth should be pursued regardless of "possible" effects.

That being said, one thing that some in HBD won't like is the proven concept of hybrid vitality, that mixing strains often results in hardier, better adapted offspring. Mutts are healthier and exhibit fewer negative traits than purebred dogs, for example.

Another myth is that the Blackness always burns through: I work with a 6' tall woman you'd never think was anything but Italian or Hispanic, she's hardly a shade darker than me. The only hint of her Blackness is her curly hair and nose, but again plenty of Roman Noses and Dark Curly hair among South Europeans. Her father is a giant of an almost pitch Black Man, a pastor. Another example would be that influencer Britney Venti (sp?) who is so light skinned you'd never guess she's half black. Once you know it, you see a few features but nothing you couldn't find in plenty of Whites.

The solution to Africa might be taking all the unmarried Chinese men and having them marry African women.

AmericanKulak says

hybrid vitality, that mixing strains often results in hardier, better adapted offspring. Mutts are healthier and exhibit fewer negative traits than purebred dogs, for example

Hybrid vigor is a thing, but outbreeding depression is also a thing.

Some subspecies are so well adapted to a specific environment so that mixing them dilutes those adaptations. Example: blue eyes are an adaptation to the low winter light in northern Europe in both people and wolves. A homogenized human will invariably have brown eyes and lose that advantage, not being able to see as well in low light.

https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/in-person-nation-vs-impersonation

physiognomy, once a darling of victorian natural philosophers, is one of those disciplines that got discredited but probably shouldn’t have been, at least not conceptually.

it, along with genes, gene driven outcomes, and genetic population variance in traits and outcomes are among the most suppressed topics in academia, media, and social media.

even mention them on twitter and you get your reach throttled severely.

do so in a university and unless you have the most secure of tenure, they will drop a building on your head.

many like to denounce it as pseudoscience.

this seems odd to me as, at core, it’s not like this is an exotic or even debatable idea. such notions were once common canon, they were just taken too far and in some poor directions owing to lack of rigor but the simple fact is that it’s patently obvious that genes affect all manner of characteristics and behaviors in animals (including humans).

because these traits are heritable, changes in environment serve as selectors where some traits prove advantageous to certain populations at certain times and are therefore conserved and spread through mating fitness outcomes.

breed and your genes spread; don’t and they disappear. that’s just biology.

similarly obvious is the idea that the traits encapsulated in your genes often create visible markers in your physiology and that humans are highly attuned to this. the evidence for this is (contrary to popular pontification) actually quite strong. like everything, it has limits, but the there is real information there.

we carry all manner of signals in our bodies and body language and it follows inevitably from this that learning to read such signals (consciously or unconsciously) from other humans is a highly adaptive trait. you’re probably experienced it consciously when you see the mentally ill on the street. their posture and movement is wrong. you can see it from a block away. it’s not difficult to perceive the survival benefit once upon a time of catching that early or knowing who would likely be prone to violence before they got close enough to engage in any.

the ones who figured it out had offspring. the ones who didn’t, not so much.

similarly, high heeled shoes on women became a trend because it’s attractive to men, but the reason for it is not known to most. it’s because it changes hip and pelvic angle to a position associated with human estrus. ask any chimp or baboon. they know this. men may not realize they’re having a “breeding response” but they are. the men who didn’t respond to that stimulus were less likely to propagate and their genes are no longer with us.

Patrick says

Some subspecies are so well adapted to a specific environment so that mixing them dilutes those adaptations. Example: blue eyes are an adaptation to the low winter light in northern Europe in both people and wolves. A homogenized human will invariably have brown eyes and lose that advantage, not being able to see as well in low light.

Those are nice for pre-artificial light/electric living, but much better that races with poor time-preferences and emotion management get that bred out or diluted by those that do?

That "Tropical Dystemper", LOL.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/meritocracy-would-mean-almost-no-black-harvard-professors-says-cambridge-academic-mqjwdwg92

Meritocracy would mean almost no black Harvard professors, says academic

Students have previously called for Nathan Cofnas to be sacked from Cambridge and said his fellowship was tantamount to funding ‘scientific racism’

A University of Cambridge academic has suggested that a meritocracy would reduce the number of black Harvard professors to almost zero.

Nathan Cofnas, an early career fellow at the faculty of philosophy, wants a “hereditarian revolution” and for a culture of “race realism” that acknowledges differences between ethnicities. ...

Cofnas, who was hired by the university in 2022, said that, without imposed diversity in recruiting, that black people “would disappear from almost all high-profile positions outside of sports and entertainment”.

He called for an end to the “war on nature” and for people to “accept that talent is not distributed equally within or across groups”.