Again you are misrepresenting studies classic SFcel trait, the study no where mention that FST for brain development genes is high. Again these genes are nothing more than adaptation to environment same as skin colour and hair colour, and gene expression does not correlate to actual measurable differences, or relevant differences. Pituitary gland showing higher differentiation, doesn't imply a link to being prone to violence, or any other things SFcels claim. And FST for genes related to brain development would probably be even lower if we have a larger and more diverse dataset. They don't provide any direct or indirect evidence for claims such as certain races are prone to violence. Also you posted a picture which clearly stated that black people are the most empathetic race.
The graph literally showed us that brain development, including prefrontal cortex development, is one of the most important factors when it comes to determining race, as opposed to just skin-color alone.
The pituitary gland produces and secretes many hormones, some of which stimulate other glands to produce other types of hormones, thus this organ and it controls many biochemical processes, e.g. growth, homeostasis, stress response, reproduction, and metabolism
All of these are connected to our patterns of behavior.
In this study, we find that genes involved in osteoblast development, hair follicles development, pigmentation, spermatid, nervous system and organ development, and some metabolic pathways have higher levels of population differentiation.
The organs they were discerning about, as indicated by the graph, were related to the brain area.
And that graph:
Just showed that they have a higher level of a certain allele, which just is connected to empathy, amongst tons of other things.
And as per previous communications, I have explained a reasonable portion of IQ is genetic:
Various studies have estimated the heritability of IQ to be between 0.7 and 0.8 in adults and 0.45 in childhood in the United States. It has been found that estimates of heritability increase as individuals age.
en.wikipedia.org
I mean look at Singapore and compare it to Poland, Lithuania or Latvia it clearly shows how a multi racial country is more safer than monoethnic country. The objective fact is multiracialism doesn't destroy a society as you claim. Weak laws do.
Singapore is one example, amongst the millions, as I previously said.
And yes, I support strict laws for most things.
Weak laws & multiculturalism destroy society, along with foids-rights, LGBTQ+, etc.
Facts and feelings are separate things. You feelings are not facts. Rather than beating around the bush, just simply say you don't like it because you feel that way.
Again, strawmaning here: These are not just my "feelings" I have directly seen the negative consequences of it, both in person, online, and by research I have seen.
Not to mention, I examined LatAm as a whole: Tons of other multicultural countries are bad as well, such as India.
Or maybe they are more open minded and not bigoted, like old people. And there's no such thing as white guilt.
You are repeating yourself I already talked about it and showed you how it isn't as apocalyptic as being claimed and younger generation have a positive effect.
Take from someone in a third world country, United States is first. It may not be the best first world country but it's heaven compared to Global South.
Fair enough: I don't mean to discredit/invalidate any third-worldcels, such as yourself, experiences living in shitholes and I do acknowledge you guys do have it worse in basically every way(aside from no faggotry ig).
However, I am merely stating the facts, that this country is not that great, and that its only going to get worse: No one in my generation, except richfags ofc, will ever be able to own a House, and thus will never have a normal life.
What does it have to do with the fact multiracial societies aren't as bad as you claim and some even outperform monoethnic countries.
Again, the example you have used is Singapore: Which is very small, has strategic value as a trade & economic hub, and also has some of the most strict laws on Earth.
It's least of the reasons, economic conditions and weaker laws and lower literacy rates and unemployment are far better and solid reasons.
Again, as I explained, these issues are all mutually connected.
Heterogeneity will breed more trust & social cohesion amongst the various social classes, will improve education, and also will lower unemployment.
There's more black on black violence rather than interracial violence. I don't know what you are trying to prove here.'
No, the point was more Blacks commit crimes against Whites as opposed to the Inverse: What I shared also indicates that crimes against Whites are rising.
The harsh climate didn't allow for construction of grand buildings. Their architecture focussed more on functionality rather than grandeur.
Meanwhile, MENA countries have quite the harsh climate, as does Europe. Your own country of India has quite a harsh one, yet you guys have many architectural achievements.
How were they supposed to use it while they were colonised ?
That wasn't my point: I was simply stating as to how they had the same resources & plenty of arable land, which they made no usage of.
Again I already told you latest and overall evidence suggests it's Sub Saharan Africans.
Link?
And from the wikipedia concerning it:
Two reviews of the evidence from the mid-2000s found technical flaws in the studies claiming independent invention, raising three major issues.
[21][8] The first was whether the material dated by radiocarbon was in secure archaeological association with iron-working residues. Many of the dates from Niger, for example, were on organic matter in potsherds that were lying on the ground surface together with iron objects. The second issue was the possible effect of "old carbon": wood or charcoal much older than the time at which iron was smelted. This is a particular problem in Niger, where the charred stumps of ancient trees are a potential source of charcoal, and have sometimes been misidentified as smelting furnaces. A third issue is the
weaker precision of the radiocarbon method for dates between 800 and 400 BCE, attributable to irregular production of radiocarbon in the upper atmosphere. Unfortunately most radiocarbon dates for the initial spread of iron metallurgy in sub-Saharan Africa fall within this range.
Indicates that they had many issues with actually discerning wether or not it was accurate, due to carbon dating.
Also:
Some historians believe that iron casting began in ancient China as early as 6000 BCE while others believe that only copper and bronze castings were being made at this time. However, evidence provided by archeologists contradicts both beliefs. Discovered by archeologists in what was then known as Mesopotamia, the earliest uncovered example of a cast component is a copper frog that dates to 3200 BCE. Although iron and other metals had been discovered, it was not until centuries later that they could be melted and poured into a mold, such as a casting.
Archeologists believe that iron was discovered by the Hittites of ancient Egypt somewhere between 5000 and 3000 BCE. During this time, they hammered or pounded the metal to create tools and weapons.
There's possible evidence that even the Chinese may have invented it, both of these date estimates for the Hittites & Chinese also indicate that they would have developed it earlier than them.
China wasn't fully colonized and subjugated by the West.
It was by Japan though, they got extremely screwed by them: Also, the US did attempt to undermine Mao & the CCP, yet they were able to resist.
China wasn't fully colonized, but it was subjected to influence:
These spheres of influence were acquired by forcing the
Qing government to sign "
unequal treaties" and long-term leases.
[8]
This harmed the Chinese quite a lot in many ways, stifling their economies & allowing the Japanese & Europeans to capitalize on the local economies.
And again China was allies with Soviet Union.
Look up the Sino-Soviet split:
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
They also had some border clashes.
So west couldn't risk doing stupid things to them cause it would have definitely lead to world war with nuclear weapons this time. While Africa wasn't.
Actually, it makes pragmatic sense for them to wish to undermine China, especially when it was still relatively weaker & underdeveloped.
