4 ms·

Modern humans are basically hybrid mixes of ancient populations of different types of upward walking intelligent "homo <something>". The large differences in hu

Modern humans are basically hybrid mixes of ancient populations of different types of upward walking intelligent "homo <something>". The large differences in human behavior are a direct result of these varying ancient populations. The political ramifications of this make it difficult to discuss openly. But there is so much evidence coming out from both DNA analysis as well as new fossil bones being found all the time.

novaomnidev 4y ago
> The large differences in human behavior are a direct result of these varying ancient populations. That’s a very strong claim without any evidence. Not only that, it’s the kind of claim that you could never have evidence for. It’s purely speculation on your part.
- ldjkfkdsjnv 4y ago
  Actually thats completely false, human populations that have a higher percentage of neanderthal DNA will differ in behavior from those that don't. This is very obvious, and claiming otherwise is intellectually dishonest
  - novaomnidev 4y ago
    Once again, no evidence. Just stating it’s true and obvious. But let’s test it. Are you referring to people like say Papua New Guineans who have very large amounts of Neanderthal (4%) and (6%) Denisovan dna ? Or are you maybe talking about Europeans which have less (1 - 2%)? Also can you tell us the exact behavioral differences that are so obvious from people with less than 2% Neanderthal dna?
ypsilon777777 4y ago
I agree with you basically, especially in the with regards to "The political ramifications of this make it difficult to discuss openly." The mainstream accepted view on human population differences is so schizoid to me. On the one hand, you're supposed to believe that "race is a social construct", and indeed many aspects of race/ethnicity are arbitrary and socially constructed. On the other hand, it's well documented and widely accepted that huge number of measurable and physical traits including skin color, eye color, hair color, hair consistency, face shape, height potential, facial hair growth, and susceptibility to both genetic and infectious diseases (see for example, Cystic Fibrosis and Northern Europeans, Sickle-Cell anemia and Sub-Saharan Africans), are strongly correlated with race and ancestry. But you're supposed to believe that the same genetic variation that causes all of these physical differences between groups has no effect at all on behavioral differences. Personally, I don't understand how one can honestly reconcile that. I understand why it's not discussed in the current milieu, and I understand that it's potentially very dangerous to the existing social order, but as far as I'm concerned it's a pretty obvious thing to anyone who is willing to see it.
- novaomnidev 4y ago
  Let’s pretend that it’s true. Now what? Let me guess Europeans magically will have the best “behavior”? That’s all we’re talking about here isn’t it?
  - ypsilon777777 4y ago
    I'm not really interested in making value judgements about entire population groups here. A lot of things would need to be considered if one were to do so. For the record, Europeans spent most of their history fighting bloody, costly wars against one another, and now aren't able to reproduce at a sustainable rate so I don't know about them having the "best" behavior. But my comment wasn't about saying any one group is "better" than another, I was just pointing out how incongruous it is to believe that population group genetics have a significant effect on physical features and disease susceptibility, while having zero effect on temperament and behavior.
    - antisthenes 4y ago
      Agree with you. "Best" behavior is only meaningful if there was some kind of way to set a civilization-wide goal and optimize for it. Since we don't set goals for humanity at large, there's no definition of "best" to optimize for, just complex combinations of sub-behaviors that may or may not be beneficial to certain groups under certain conditions, nothing more.
- goldenchrome 4y ago
  Relevant comic https://twitter.com/SaladBarFan/status/1608434861794295808?s=20&t=Wt6mDOudGvVF2Eg07PmeYg https://twitter.com/SaladBarFan/status/1608434861794295808?s...
- jmopp 4y ago
  Sickle-cell trait is found in sub-Saharan Africans from tropical regions. It is rare in South Africa, most of which is malaria-free and thus has no benefit to the mutation. > But you're supposed to believe that the same genetic variation that causes all of these physical differences between groups has no effect at all on behavioral differences. Well, yes. None of those differences you mentioned are in the brain. Why should they lead to behavioural differences? Also: culture is not nearly as conserved as genetics. Populations can change languages within a few generations, and most culture shifts come from wanting to assimilate into the culture of the perceived elites, rather than population replacement or large-level mixing. The exceptions (European settlement in the New World, the Bantu migration, and possibly some others that don't immediately come to mind) are notable because they are the exceptions to the norm.

novaomnidev 4y ago

> The large differences in human behavior are a direct result of these varying ancient populations. That’s a very strong claim without any evidence. Not only that, it’s the kind of claim that you could never have evidence for. It’s purely speculation on your part.

ldjkfkdsjnv 4y ago
Actually thats completely false, human populations that have a higher percentage of neanderthal DNA will differ in behavior from those that don't. This is very obvious, and claiming otherwise is intellectually dishonest
- novaomnidev 4y ago
  Once again, no evidence. Just stating it’s true and obvious. But let’s test it. Are you referring to people like say Papua New Guineans who have very large amounts of Neanderthal (4%) and (6%) Denisovan dna ? Or are you maybe talking about Europeans which have less (1 - 2%)? Also can you tell us the exact behavioral differences that are so obvious from people with less than 2% Neanderthal dna?

ypsilon777777 4y ago

I agree with you basically, especially in the with regards to "The political ramifications of this make it difficult to discuss openly." The mainstream accepted view on human population differences is so schizoid to me. On the one hand, you're supposed to believe that "race is a social construct", and indeed many aspects of race/ethnicity are arbitrary and socially constructed. On the other hand, it's well documented and widely accepted that huge number of measurable and physical traits including skin color, eye color, hair color, hair consistency, face shape, height potential, facial hair growth, and susceptibility to both genetic and infectious diseases (see for example, Cystic Fibrosis and Northern Europeans, Sickle-Cell anemia and Sub-Saharan Africans), are strongly correlated with race and ancestry. But you're supposed to believe that the same genetic variation that causes all of these physical differences between groups has no effect at all on behavioral differences. Personally, I don't understand how one can honestly reconcile that. I understand why it's not discussed in the current milieu, and I understand that it's potentially very dangerous to the existing social order, but as far as I'm concerned it's a pretty obvious thing to anyone who is willing to see it.

novaomnidev 4y ago
Let’s pretend that it’s true. Now what? Let me guess Europeans magically will have the best “behavior”? That’s all we’re talking about here isn’t it?
- ypsilon777777 4y ago
  I'm not really interested in making value judgements about entire population groups here. A lot of things would need to be considered if one were to do so. For the record, Europeans spent most of their history fighting bloody, costly wars against one another, and now aren't able to reproduce at a sustainable rate so I don't know about them having the "best" behavior. But my comment wasn't about saying any one group is "better" than another, I was just pointing out how incongruous it is to believe that population group genetics have a significant effect on physical features and disease susceptibility, while having zero effect on temperament and behavior.
  - antisthenes 4y ago
    Agree with you. "Best" behavior is only meaningful if there was some kind of way to set a civilization-wide goal and optimize for it. Since we don't set goals for humanity at large, there's no definition of "best" to optimize for, just complex combinations of sub-behaviors that may or may not be beneficial to certain groups under certain conditions, nothing more.
goldenchrome 4y ago
Relevant comic https://twitter.com/SaladBarFan/status/1608434861794295808?s=20&t=Wt6mDOudGvVF2Eg07PmeYg https://twitter.com/SaladBarFan/status/1608434861794295808?s...
jmopp 4y ago
Sickle-cell trait is found in sub-Saharan Africans from tropical regions. It is rare in South Africa, most of which is malaria-free and thus has no benefit to the mutation. > But you're supposed to believe that the same genetic variation that causes all of these physical differences between groups has no effect at all on behavioral differences. Well, yes. None of those differences you mentioned are in the brain. Why should they lead to behavioural differences? Also: culture is not nearly as conserved as genetics. Populations can change languages within a few generations, and most culture shifts come from wanting to assimilate into the culture of the perceived elites, rather than population replacement or large-level mixing. The exceptions (European settlement in the New World, the Bantu migration, and possibly some others that don't immediately come to mind) are notable because they are the exceptions to the norm.