Blackpill Pupillary Dilations As A Predictor of Foids Sexual Interests

[DarkStar]

Pupillary Response as an Age-Specific Measure of Sexual Interest - Archives of Sexual Behavior

In the visual processing of sexual content, pupil dilation is an indicator of arousal that has been linked to observers’ sexual orientation. This study investigated whether this measure can be extended to determine age-specific sexual interest. In two experiments, the pupillary responses of...

link.springer.com

Honestly, it is quite interesting how technology is essentially going on to prove the blackpill: As some others have noted, AI itself seems to prove what we ourselves claim & prove with various studies n' sheit.

New AI can work out whether you're gay or straight from a photograph

An algorithm deduced the sexuality of people on a dating site with up to 91% accuracy, raising tricky ethical questions

www.theguardian.com

AI calculates 8% of foids aged 18-24 are OnlyFans whores

These are some jaw dropping stats. Source

incels.is

AI Sees Race Even When Humans Can't [Breakdowns]

Deep Learning can detect a person's race from medical images, even if those images are corrupted a lot.

artificialintelligencemadesimple.substack.com

To start off with, this study somewhat proves the lesbianpill; which is that while foids still ofc find "Chad" attractive they would rather value a foid over some lower-value or even average male.

Sexual orientation was confirmed with the general information scale that was administered following the eye-tracking task (see “Materials” section). In the 22 male observers, 19 reported “strong sexual interest in women” and three selected “some sexual interest in women.” Among the 22 females, 12 selected “strong sexual interest in males” and 10 selected “some sexual interest in males.” Participants reported no other sexual interests in this questionnaire.

Quite a disparity between the "somewhat attracted to the opposite gender" when comparing men to females.

Here's the first experiment:

Now here is where things do get a bit more interesting, it would seem that men seemed to fixate much more on a foids body compared to foids, whom seemed to of course notice face much more on males by a substantial margin.

Furthermore, the findings indicate that while men and women pupils dilated at around the same fixation %, they seemed to emphasize more upon their own bodies gender as opposed to men. Now, ofc it makes sense that face matters just as much -if not arguably slightly more- than that of your physique. However, if you believe the general thesis myself & many others do on homosexuality you would understand it is more of a sexual perversion, not actual innate attraction via pair bonding. Thus, this could help support a claim that foids see attraction to other foids more in the innately sexual sense for pure pleasure, as opposed to general "romantic" attraction: Possibly, foids strong in-group preference also contributes to this as well.

However, this is where it all gets really interesting:

This graph was done in to measure the "Percentage pupillary change for all stimulus categories for male and female observers in Experiment 1. Lines represent standard errors of the means" in this experiment. I also should point out that the images used for this study were of people at a beach, so semi-sexual Ig we can say.

But based on the mean pupil change in response to stimuli, it seems that while men showed great dilation in response to foid related stimuli, foids seemed to dilute significantly less in response to male elicited stimuli. However, the biggest surprise here is how they not only dilated the most in response to their own gender, but also a somewhat neutral-positive response in regards to boys. Now ofc, let's not jump the gun- sure some of this can be chalked up to foids nurturing instincts. But if that was the full case, then why do they not elicit the same response in regards to foids?

This is quite interesting data- make of it what you will but in my opinion it is quite revealing about the nature of foids.

This is from the findings:

These data show, for example, that all of the male observers (22/22) recorded larger pupil sizes during the viewing of women than men, and 91 % (20/22) of male observers displayed larger pupils in response to women than girls. In addition, only 22 % (5/22) of these participants showed a greater pupillary response to men than boys. With regard to female observers, 73 % (16/22) showed more pupil dilation during the viewing of women than men. However, 86 % (19/22) of this participant group also exhibited larger pupils in response to women than girls, and 59 % (13/22) recorded larger pupils to men than boys.

Frankly, this is both a massive lesbianpill as well as that of another certified "empathetic & innocent" gender moment as well as whatever the specific "pill" term for foid pedophilia is.

Genuinely, it seems foids are much more appealed by other foids in a purely aroused sense as opposed to that of most males- not to mention their seemingly "neutral" or "unphased" response to boys in this context.

But let's look at experiment 2:

The left graph is unscrambled images(meaning they were not altered or diluted in anyway), and the right is "scrambled" meaning they were diluted with.

Of course, the unscrambled is of the most significance & aside from the child aspect, what else do you notice?

As in the last one, we see similar results in which mens pupils heavily dilate in response to foids yet hardly so much for men- then foids yield the result of diluting more so for themselves and only slightly much for males.

These data show that 80 % (16/20) of the male participants displayed larger pupils when viewing women than men, 95 % (19/20) displayed larger pupils to women than girls, and 85 % (17/20) displayed larger pupils to men than boys. Of the female observers, 65 % (13/20) recorded larger pupils to women than men, 90 % (18/20) displayed larger pupils to women than girls, and 90 % (18/20) displayed larger pupils to men than boys.

And ofc, the male stat here:

and 85 % (17/20) displayed larger pupils to men than boys

Makes sense when you factor in how around 1/5th of the guys here are faggots.

In reality, it would be around 95%-100% or so who would display larger pupils in response to men than boys- thus proving foids are more pedophilic than males.

The pupils of male observers dilated to pictures of women but not men or children. Female observers showed pupillary dilation to pictures of women and men but not to children.

Overall, this is more a brutal lesbianpill than anything. These studies both yielded consistent results that foids elicit response to both male & sexual stimuli, with the various graphs shown here proving they are both chad & lesbian only.

Spoiler

@Koomersarj @wereq @weaselbomber @PersonalityChad @WorthlessSlavicShit @GeckoBus @reveries @Castaway @Grodd @based_meme @LeFrenchCel @Diddy @Lazyandtalentless @Stupid Clown @SuperKanga.Belgrade @Flagellum_Dei @Sergeant Kelly @Regenerator @veryrare @Epedaphic @Fevet @caineturbat2003 @AtrociousCitizen @daydreamER @NIGGER BOJANGLES @Blackpill Monk @Skelly @Antorian @To koniec @stranger @NeverGetUp @Paladin

 

[Grodd]

More proof of foids being Chad only or being lesbians is more of a reason it's beyond over for sub5s

 

[PersonalityChad]

Interesting, always nice to see science confirm what we've been saying for years. Women would rather fuck other women than come anywhere close a sub5 man

 

[Stupid Clown]

I assume women are more partial to boys because boys lack masculinity. I've seen posts from women before lamenting about how men become masculine. It's not surprising that women could be more pedophilic in their interests than men

 

[Lazyandtalentless]

Interesting, always nice to see science confirm what we've been saying for years.

I heckin love sciencerino

 

[based_meme]

AI Sees Race Even When Humans Can't [Breakdowns]

Deep Learning can detect a person's race from medical images, even if those images are corrupted a lot.

artificialintelligencemadesimple.substack.com

J F L

@Logic55, @Caesercel, and every other anti-race faggot on suicide watch.

 

[Stupid Clown]

Also, women focusing on other women more than men could have to do with women being more competitive and obsessed with other womens body/appearance.

 

[PersonalityChad]

I heckin love sciencerino

View: https://youtu.be/qU7FuAswPW0

 

[Caesercel]

J F L

@Logic55, @Caesercel, and every other anti-race faggot on suicide watch.

When it comes to race, they rely on self-identification with very broad categories. This is flimsy because there is large genetic diversity amongst people of the same color (the genetic diversity of Africa alone is greater than anywhere else in the world, even if most Africans would be lumped in Black). Genetic classifications would have a better carryover with the medical domain. The authors acknowledge as much but ultimately chose self-reported race since racial discrimination is not done on a genetic level, but a color level. I would love to see how things change if we change this race measure.

 

[Krobus]

None of this shit matters when 80% of the world's pupils are indistinguishable from their t50 irises

 

[based_meme]

@Caesercel Of course, the left-leaning liberal authors don't accept race. Shock and amazement.

But even they have to yield to the fact that genetic differences matter where it seems to count the most (medicine).

 

[DarkStar]

J F L

@Logic55, @Caesercel, and every other anti-race faggot on suicide watch.

Yeah jfl, I've shared stuff also proving the connection it has to general IQ:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354766492_Genetic_Ancestry_and_General_Cognitive_Ability_in_a_Sample_of_American_Youths

https://www.mdpi.com/2624-8611/1/1/34

https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf

German immigrant IQ is about 85 according to new study

Also according to prior studies

www.emilkirkegaard.com

National IQs Are Valid

National IQ estimates are robust, reliable, and realistic

www.cremieux.xyz

And ofc proving it is real based on various factors, but let's not derail here.

 

[Ahnfeltia]

This is quite interesting data- make of it what you will but in my opinion it is quite revealing about the nature of foids.

presuming pupillary dilation correlates with attraction, for which this study seems to provide no evidence

 

[GeckoBus]

Pupillary Response as an Age-Specific Measure of Sexual Interest - Archives of Sexual Behavior

In the visual processing of sexual content, pupil dilation is an indicator of arousal that has been linked to observers’ sexual orientation. This study investigated whether this measure can be extended to determine age-specific sexual interest. In two experiments, the pupillary responses of...

link.springer.com

Honestly, it is quite interesting how technology is essentially going on to prove the blackpill: As some others have noted, AI itself seems to prove what we ourselves claim & prove with various studies n' sheit.

New AI can work out whether you're gay or straight from a photograph

An algorithm deduced the sexuality of people on a dating site with up to 91% accuracy, raising tricky ethical questions

www.theguardian.com

AI calculates 8% of foids aged 18-24 are OnlyFans whores

These are some jaw dropping stats. Source

incels.is

AI Sees Race Even When Humans Can't [Breakdowns]

Deep Learning can detect a person's race from medical images, even if those images are corrupted a lot.

artificialintelligencemadesimple.substack.com

To start off with, this study somewhat proves the lesbianpill; which is that while foids still ofc find "Chad" attractive they would rather value a foid over some lower-value or even average male.

Quite a disparity between the "somewhat attracted to the opposite gender" when comparing men to females.

Here's the first experiment:

View attachment 1432386
Now here is where things do get a bit more interesting, it would seem that men seemed to fixate much more on a foids body compared to foids, whom seemed to of course notice face much more on males by a substantial margin.

Furthermore, the findings indicate that while men and women pupils dilated at around the same fixation %, they seemed to emphasize more upon their own bodies gender as opposed to men. Now, ofc it makes sense that face matters just as much -if not arguably slightly more- than that of your physique. However, if you believe the general thesis myself & many others do on homosexuality you would understand it is more of a sexual perversion, not actual innate attraction via pair bonding. Thus, this could help support a claim that foids see attraction to other foids more in the innately sexual sense for pure pleasure, as opposed to general "romantic" attraction: Possibly, foids strong in-group preference also contributes to this as well.

However, this is where it all gets really interesting:
View attachment 1432411
This graph was done in to measure the "Percentage pupillary change for all stimulus categories for male and female observers in Experiment 1. Lines represent standard errors of the means" in this experiment. I also should point out that the images used for this study were of people at a beach, so semi-sexual Ig we can say.

But based on the mean pupil change in response to stimuli, it seems that while men showed great dilation in response to foid related stimuli, foids seemed to dilute significantly less in response to male elicited stimuli. However, the biggest surprise here is how they not only dilated the most in response to their own gender, but also a somewhat neutral-positive response in regards to boys. Now ofc, let's not jump the gun- sure some of this can be chalked up to foids nurturing instincts. But if that was the full case, then why do they not elicit the same response in regards to foids?

This is quite interesting data- make of it what you will but in my opinion it is quite revealing about the nature of foids.

This is from the findings:



Frankly, this is both a massive lesbianpill as well as that of another certified "empathetic & innocent" gender moment as well as whatever the specific "pill" term for foid pedophilia is.

Genuinely, it seems foids are much more appealed by other foids in a purely aroused sense as opposed to that of most males- not to mention their seemingly "neutral" or "unphased" response to boys in this context.

But let's look at experiment 2:

View attachment 1432426

The left graph is unscrambled images(meaning they were not altered or diluted in anyway), and the right is "scrambled" meaning they were diluted with.

Of course, the unscrambled is of the most significance & aside from the child aspect, what else do you notice?

As in the last one, we see similar results in which mens pupils heavily dilate in response to foids yet hardly so much for men- then foids yield the result of diluting more so for themselves and only slightly much for males.

And ofc, the male stat here:

Makes sense when you factor in how around 1/5th of the guys here are faggots.

In reality, it would be around 95%-100% or so who would display larger pupils in response to men than boys- thus proving foids are more pedophilic than males.

Overall, this is more a brutal lesbianpill than anything. These studies both yielded consistent results that foids elicit response to both male & sexual stimuli, with the various graphs shown here proving they are both chad & lesbian only.

Spoiler

@Koomersarj @wereq @weaselbomber @PersonalityChad @WorthlessSlavicShit @GeckoBus @reveries @Castaway @Grodd @based_meme @LeFrenchCel @Diddy @Lazyandtalentless @Stupid Clown @SuperKanga.Belgrade @Flagellum_Dei @Sergeant Kelly @Regenerator @veryrare @Epedaphic @Fevet @caineturbat2003 @AtrociousCitizen @daydreamER @NIGGER BOJANGLES @Blackpill Monk @Skelly @Antorian @To koniec @stranger @NeverGetUp @Paladin

when i was homeless this guy told us he divorced his wife cuz she played with the kids genitals. Women have more access to kids than men and we also know women abuse and kill kids way more than men, especially if we include abortion stats. So this data doesnt surprise me. This is also the like 100th proof of lesbian pill and female in-group preference. Great thread honestly, just another log to the fucking witch fire burning of female innocence. Female pedophilia is also giga underrated topic. I think most men are attracted to teen girls for obvious reasons, while women seem to be more interested in actual child-like stuff if you study the way they dress, design cartoon characters etc. Women accusing men of pedophilia could just be another projection.

 

[Fantasea]

presuming pupillary dilation correlates with attraction, for which this study seems to provide no evidence

man I thought she liked me all this time but those pupils look constricted.

 

[Ahnfeltia]

man I thought she liked me all this time but those pupils look constricted.

 

[Fantasea]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrglDe6cKIo

 

[Caesercel]

@Caesercel Of course, the left-leaning liberal authors don't accept race. Shock and amazement.

But even they have to yield to the fact that genetic differences matter where it seems to count the most (medicine).

Or maybe using research that is trying to make a point, to make a completely different point is a tell-tale sign of race-realist dishonesty.

Why do we even need this though? You can already tell someone's race by looking at them because that is the primary perceptory foundation of that social construct. (just ignore the 70% white ancestory "black" girl in your neighbourhood. We all know race-mixing is "le bad" and its products don't count)

 

[DarkStar]

presuming pupillary dilation correlates with attraction, for which this study seems to provide no evidence

the context was to do with sexual/somewhat sexual stimuli arousal

None of this shit matters when 80% of the world's pupils are indistinguishable from their t50 irises

jfl, well when they can actually notice and measure it one would say it is quite revealing.

I assume women are more partial to boys because boys lack masculinity. I've seen posts from women before lamenting about how men become masculine. It's not surprising that women could be more pedophilic in their interests than men

can you possibly make a thread highlighting some of these? would be interesting to see.

Interesting, always nice to see science confirm what we've been saying for years.

We have modern & historical science on our side, as well as tons of accounts from history & the present to confirm one another.

The blackpill meets all the criteria for a valid basis in reality.

More proof of foids being Chad only or being lesbians is more of a reason it's beyond over for sub5s

 

[based_meme]

Or maybe using research that is trying to make a point, to make a completely different point is a tell-tale sign of race-realist dishonesty.

Why do we even need this though? You can already tell someone's race by looking at them because that is the primary perceptory foundation of that social construct. (just ignore the 70% white ancestory "black" girl in your neighbourhood. We all know race-mixing is "le bad" and its products don't count)

This mf still thinks race is a social construct.

I can't bro.

 

[Ahnfeltia]

the context was to do with sexual/somewhat sexual stimuli arousal

the abstract of the study literally says

In women, pupillary responses also correlated poorly with sexual appeal ratings of the stimuli.

 

[Koomersarj]

I don’t know how ANYONE can’t be utterly disgusted by foids after learning the depths of their sexual degeneracy. Them fucking animals, them reading erotica about fucking animals, them fucking each other, them shitting in condoms then FREEZING their fucking turds to masturbate with later…

I could go on and on, but the point is foids are far more degenerate and depraved than men, and I’m honestly disgusted by them at this point. I see why Chads use foids as pump-and-dump material; I’d NEVER want to spend the rest of my life with one of these abominations

 

[Caesercel]

This mf still thinks race is a social construct.

I can't bro.

It can't be anything else when you sit down and think about it. Its not like I want to agree with SJWs or join their social club. It just logically makes sense.

 

[Koomersarj]

To think most men live their lives in worship of literal faggots…

 

[based_meme]

It just logically makes sense.

OK, give us the logical rundown please.

 

[Stupid Clown]

Or maybe using research that is trying to make a point, to make a completely different point is a tell-tale sign of race-realist dishonesty.

Why do we even need this though? You can already tell someone's race by looking at them because that is the primary perceptory foundation of that social construct. (just ignore the 70% white ancestory "black" girl in your neighbourhood. We all know race-mixing is "le bad" and its products don't count)

"trying to make a point " all because research has an intention doesn't mean you can't take the results and draw your own conclusions.

the context was to do with sexual/somewhat sexual stimuli arousal

jfl, well when they can actually notice and measure it one would say it is quite revealing.

can you possibly make a thread highlighting some of these? would be interesting to see.

We have modern & historical science on our side, as well as tons of accounts from history & the present to confirm one another.

The blackpill meets all the criteria for a valid basis in reality.

I don't have screenshots. I remember seeing these posts a few years back

 

[Fantasea]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZ-dFD6zkQI

 

[Koomersarj]

I assume women are more partial to boys because boys lack masculinity. I've seen posts from women before lamenting about how men become masculine. It's not surprising that women could be more pedophilic in their interests than men

I think the “masculinity” gain they’re lamenting is probably the skin losing collagen and growing rougher, as well as the gaining of muscle/excessive dimorphism. If foids really preferred feminine men like so many people claim they do, they wouldn’t obsess over height, frame, hand size, or deep-set features nearly as much as they do

 

[Caesercel]

OK, give us the logical rundown please.

Can't do that unless I know exactly what claim I am dealing with. But as a primer, I've never encountered a conception of race that is truly homogenous within and heterogenous without. As for why I think its a social construct, that comes from personal history of living in culture where this construct is not omnipresent and rejecting all other possibilities regarding the current theories of racial division.

 

[Lv99_BixNood]

AI Sees Race Even When Humans Can't [Breakdowns]​

Deep Learning can detect a person's race from medical images, even if those images are corrupted a lot.

artificialintelligencemadesimple.substack.com

B-But race is a social construct

 

[Caesercel]

"trying to make a point " all because research has an intention doesn't mean you can't take the results and draw your own conclusions.

If your intention changes then the methodology and even the theoritical foundations of what is being done changes too. Otherwise, you are left with half-assed arguments.

 

[based_meme]

Can't do that unless I know exactly what claim I am dealing with.

The one you said: "race is a social construct."

 

[Caesercel]

The one you said: "race is a social construct."

That is evidenced in the very fact that race is a point of social classification (in the west at least). Which loosely correlates with phenotypal differences signifying continents of origin in the sensory realm, to separate the colonialist (white) from the colonized (non-white). The existence of race as a social concept itself is a proof of it being a social construct. Kind of like an analytical truth.

The continent of origin, the phenotype, the skull shape or the very minor genetic differences are signifiers but never the main point. The point has always been to separate different classes born from the material realities of history of colonialism. And its impact on the VERY social policies like immigration or third world resource extraction or warfare.

 

[blackpillednigga]

looking back the blackpill was more obvious than I thought. like if men are attracted to women based on looks, why wouldn't vice versa be true? "women will chase you if you have money and a college degree saar" kek

 

[Regenerator]

AI is black pilled too

 

[DarkStar]

the abstract of the study literally says

correlated poorly =/= that it did not produce any worthwhile findings. Don't just read the abstract, actually look into what it says

Also, a lot of this was "self reported" which they use in their comparisons & ofc we know just how honest foids can be

Sexual orientation was confirmed with the general information scale that was administered following the eye-tracking task (see “Materials” section). In the 22 male observers, 19 reported “strong sexual interest in women” and three selected “some sexual interest in women.” Among the 22 females, 12 selected “strong sexual interest in males” and 10 selected “some sexual interest in males.” Participants reported no other sexual interests in this questionnaire.

. Overall, these results therefore reveal a dilation response in male observers that appears to be consistent with self-reported sex and age preferences. Female observers’ responses are also consistent with their age preferences, but do not correspond with their reported sexual interest in adult men.

In addition, pupil size was unchanged from baseline in response to boys and no-person scenes, both ts ≤ −1.59, ps ≥ 0.126, ds ≤ 0.69. In female observers, pictures of men, t(21) = 1.49, p = 0.15, d = 0.65, boys, t(21) = −0.12, p = 0.91, d = 0.05, and landscape beach scenes (−1.53 %), t(21) = −2.19, p = 0.04, d = 0.96 did not elicit a change in pupil size from baseline.

Self-reporting can hold some accuracy to it, but this is circumstantial ofc.

Furthermore, it at least is revealing to us that to some degree foids find each other quite appealing in a somewhat sexualized manner given the images shown in the study:

These data show that 80 % (16/20) of the male participants displayed larger pupils when viewing women than men, 95 % (19/20) displayed larger pupils to women than girls, and 85 % (17/20) displayed larger pupils to men than boys. Of the female observers, 65 % (13/20) recorded larger pupils to women than men, 90 % (18/20) displayed larger pupils to women than girls, and 90 % (18/20) displayed larger pupils to men than boys.

And ofc, it just highlights how foids are wired completely differently from men, which is something society at large seems to forget. As well as foids insane in group-preference.

But yes, I did overlook that since I was rather intrigued by the findings which highlight many facts about foids regardless of if foids were sexually stimulated or not.

 

[Lazyandtalentless]

Bluepillers: 43

 

[Ahnfeltia]

correlated poorly =/= that it did not produce any worthwhile findings.

I didn't mean to imply the results weren't interesting -- just that you jumped the gun a bit

Don't just read the abstract, actually look into what it says

guilty as charged

Self-reporting can hold some accuracy to it, but this is circumstantial ofc.

I know. Self-reported data is worth less than hard data.

 

[Skelly]

wait what about the dilation when women looked at girls? Is that what you meant by the final 'foid'?

Now ofc, let's not jump the gun- sure some of this can be chalked up to foids nurturing instincts. But if that was the full case, then why do they not elicit the same response in regards to foids?

 

[Emba]

Seeth and dilate

 

[DarkStar]

It can't be anything else when you sit down and think about it. It's not like I want to agree with SJWs or join their social club. It just logically makes sense.

The one you said: "race is a social construct."

Using "it is a social construct" is a very poor retort for many reasons. If you argue well enough, you can say that human civilization is a "social construct" and anything which exists due to human civilization or as a result of it is just a "social construct"

Communism is in fact a social construct, due to the fact it places its sole emphasis on the material.

Claiming something is a "social construct" is just another dismissive argument used in order to remove any value it may have, be it material or immaterial.

That is evidenced in the very fact that race is a point of social classification (in the west at least).

It is fair to say that it does have a social implication to it, yet this definition of it arises due to the observable differences in appearance which they stated went just beyond skin tone and also into various other physical features, such as face & body hair, cephalic index, height, etc. in other words phenotypes which back then were much more distinctive to populations.

They also noted behavior, and when ofc genomes and the such could be sequenced & understood better, people found that races in fact did have noticeable genetic differences:

James Watson tells the inconvenient truth: Faces the consequences

Recent comments by the eminent biologist James Watson concerning intelligence test data from sub-Saharan Africa resulted in professional sanctions as …

www.sciencedirect.com

DNA Pioneer James Watson Loses Honorary Titles Over Racist Comments

The renowned scientist has a long history of controversial commentary on not only race, but issues spanning gender, religion and sexuality

www.smithsonianmag.com

For example, the man who helped pioneer the structure of DNA was a believer in inherent racial differences. And sadly ofc, he lost his titles

Even David Reich here admits in noticeable racial differences:

Opinion | How Genetics Is Changing Our Understanding of ‘Race’ (Published 2018)

If scientists avoid discussing the topic candidly, racist theories will fill the vacuum.

www.nytimes.com

Which loosely correlates with phenotypal differences signifying continents of origin in the sensory realm, to separate the colonialist (white) from the colonized (non-white).

This isn't always the case, greeks & romans made note of the phenotypical differences in themselves from the Celts & Germanics & Middle-Eastern populations.

The same can also be applied for the various differences Middle-Eastern/Arabs made between African, Mixed, White, Turkic, etc. slaves based on phenotypically differences & ofc Socio-Cultural behavior

The existence of race as a social concept itself is a proof of it being a social construct.

Again with the "social concept" thing

Social classes, economics, etc. is all that of a social construct by this logic then. And by that logic therein, everything which exists as a result of human understanding of it, which we can define in some way is just that of a "social construct"

the phenotype,

Some phenotypes do share similarities or have pseudo resemblances to others at times, and while some phenotypes are shared between populations, various phenotypes are more specific to certain populations.

the skull shape

Which still to this day is noted for varying differences:

A Geographic Cline of Skull and Brain Morphology among Individuals of European Ancestry - PMC

Human skull and brain morphology are strongly influenced by genetic factors, and skull size and shape vary worldwide. However, the relationship between specific brain morphology and genetically-determined ancestry is largely unknown. We used two ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

skull-shape is also utilized & has been consistently utilized in various taxonomic classifications of animal species.

Skull and face changes define modern humans — Harvard Gazette

Daniel Lieberman can see millions of years of human evolution at a glance. The collection of skulls on his office shelves come from chimpanzees, long-extinct humans, and modern men and women. The hollow eye sockets, ancient teeth, and empty skulls pose the same question every day: What made us...

news.harvard.edu

or the very minor genetic differences

These differences are enough to where we can identify ancestral populations, which ofc descend from other various groups which we can explain through human evolution- so that must be a "social construct" also by that logic?

Europe's Ancestors: Cro-Magnon 28,000 Years Old Had DNA Like Modern Humans

Some 40,000 years ago, Cro-Magnons -- the first people who had a skeleton that looked anatomically modern -- entered Europe, coming from Africa. Geneticists now show that a Cro-Magnoid individual who lived in Southern Italy 28,000 years ago was a modern European, genetically as well as...

www.sciencedaily.com

https://www.reuters.com/article/world/ghost-ancestors-african-dna-study-detects-mysterious-human-species-idUSKBN2072X9/

So obviously, human evolution which in part contributed to the rise of different races all must mean that evolution and taxonomic differences between different groups are not real and are the "social constructs"

The point has always been to separate different classes born from the material realities of history of colonialism.

So was what the Romans & Greeks did, as well as MENA with their slave trade & occupations of places such as swaths of the Indian subcontinent, the Balkans, Iberia, North Africa, East Africa, etc. colonialism? The point is, groups have always defined differences between "us" and "them" regardless of how history has went. Groups define an "us" and "them" due to race which is a mixture of phenotype & genotype the latter of which influences behavior.

And its impact on the VERY social policies like immigration

So that's why currently countries are allowing mass-immigration, regardless of the consequential economic affects?

 

[Fevet]

Foids when they catch sight of a sub8 man

 

[m3nt4Lbl0ck3d]

Interesting, always nice to see science confirm what we've been saying for years. Women would rather fuck other women than come anywhere close a sub5 man

 

[m3nt4Lbl0ck3d]

Damn a rare, solid post. Nice. Thank you.

 

[Antorian]

Holy fucking shit just imprison them all and only let them out to meet their assigned husband NOW!

The more I learn about them the worse it gets!

 

[Caesercel]

Using "it is a social construct" is a very poor retort for many reasons. If you argue well enough, you can say that human civilization is a "social construct" and anything which exists due to human civilization or as a result of it is just a "social construct"

Communism is in fact a social construct, due to the fact it places its sole emphasis on the material.

Claiming something is a "social construct" is just another dismissive argument used in order to remove any value it may have, be it material or immaterial.

Yes human civilisation and communism are social constructs. But calling race a social construct is not a retort. It is simply a matter of fact.

It is fair to say that it does have a social implication to it,

These ideas don't have to mutually exclusive. Even if there was a basis for race that is homogenous within and heterogeneous without. I.e. we found the holy grail of race realism. It still wouldn't change race's role as a social construct.

The real meat is in the claim that race is nothing but a social construct.

The problem with the rest of your post and race realist claims in general is that they never go about it honestly with genuine curiousity and ask the question, "Are there biological variations in human populations?And can these variations be used to justify a classification system that could put these humans into neat little groups?"

Because if people honestly asks these questions and proceed to study the phenomena at hand then they could come up with tens to hundreds of "races" depending on how they go about it. But that's not what the race realists want.

Instead race realists already have a pre-conceived ideological notion of race and then they proceed to cherry pick evidence which agrees with those notions. And they are bound to find such tidbits since the (made up) concept of race is very loosely identified by phenotypes and continents of origin. And it makes sense that people having origins on different continents would have some biological variation that'll correlate with those pre-conceived racial groupings. And then they ignore evidence which talks about biological variation within a race since that doesn't help their ideology.

But here's the kicker. You cannot start of with a pre-conceived idea of race and then use correlational evidence to prove that idea. Because you've already built your conclusion into your axiom . That's intellectual dishonesty. No, you must start of completely blind and end up with hundreds of races. Then you will recognise that the biological variation cannot be the basis for your particular racial classification with "white people" and "black people" since you are assuming that classification's existence to begin with, which is circular reasoning and not supported by blind science either.

And then one can ask, "If biological variation is not the fundamental basis for those racial groupings then what is?" And this is where you open a history book, read about treatment of blacks, treatment of chinks, colonial history. And come to the correct conclusion that the fundamental basis of race has always been social.

 

[WorthlessSlavicShit]

Read every word and looked at every chart.

 

[DarkStar]

Yes human civilisation and communism are social constructs

By this claim, everything which humans can conceive of is a "social construct"

The claim that race is a "social construct" stems from the general thesis that "all knowledge is

Using the term "social construct" is poor, since the term of it especially when used in the context of "race is a social construct" inadvertently proves too much. Simply, if everything is a social construct, the concept loses all utility. Social construction only makes sense if there is a contrast, namely observable differences.

But if everything is a social construct, as you just implied by claiming that civilization aka how most humans have lived in some way is a "construct" then here's what I ask- is the "social construct of race" more like the "social construct" of money, or gravity? Money -in a way- can be changed, but gravity cannot.

These ideas don't have to mutually exclusive. Even if there was a basis for race that is homogenous within and heterogeneous without. I.e. we found the holy grail of race realism. It still wouldn't change race's role as a social construct.

The real meat is in the claim that race is nothing but a social construct.

As I explained above, using the term "social construct" is very poor since claiming it is a social construct

The problem with the rest of your post and race realist claims in general is that they never go about it honestly with genuine curiousity and ask the question, "Are there biological variations in human populations?

Yes, that is observable by genetic metrics & also literal noticeable physical differences in populations

And can these variations be used to justify a classification system that could put these humans into neat little groups?"

So should we apply the same to taxonomy for animals, plants, and bacteria?

Because if people honestly asks these questions and proceed to study the phenomena at hand then they could come up with tens to hundreds of "races" depending on how they go about it.

This is a "what aboutism"

What you are thinking of would be ethnicity, which while yes some differences do exist between these groups, there is enough clear markers o put them under a broad term different from another

Again, this is like comparing animals or plants by a pure taxonomic metric

Instead race realists already have a pre-conceived ideological notion of race

Based upon past/prior science/research

As stated above, a part of race is visual- in that you notice physical differences & ofc the shared behavioral patterns by these people with differences

And they are bound to find such tidbits since the (made up) concept of race

"made up" when again, the concept of race has always existed even before modern science

is very loosely identified by phenotypes

Also relates to genotype

Modern Europeans are mixed of EEF+Steppe
Sands are ANF+Natufian+iranian neolithic farmer
etc.

Phenotypes also hint at some greater differences, such that of cephalic measurements which are partly why these phenotypes exist

in. And it makes sense that people having origins on different continents would have some biological variation that'll correlate with those pre-conceived racial groupings.

In other words, they have biological looks/variations which were selected for in favor of the climate- so maybe this is something which is observable within nature & thus has a basis for it?

And then they ignore evidence which talks about biological variation within a race since that doesn't help their ideology.

The differences between other groups are much more substantial & noticeable, that's the point of it

Now yes ofc, there are various shades of blue. However, should all of these "shades" be classified as their own unique color, or that of

You cannot start of with a pre-conceived idea of race and then use correlational evidence to prove that idea.

So your whole claim is that since we have a "pre conceived" idea based upon established scientific research that it is "unfair?"

Because you've already built your conclusion into your axiom .

It's not a conclusion, it's rather just observing that various differences do exist & thus can be further proven

That's intellectual dishonesty.

I find this coming from the Marxist/Marxist aligned folks more so

No, you must start of completely blind and end up with hundreds of races.

That would be incorrect

again with the color analogy, yes we would find different "shades" of colors, implying differences but when compared to the vast amounts of other colors, they have more in common with one another & also share many basic structures.

And then one can ask, "If biological variation is not the fundamental basis for those racial groupings then what is?" And this is where you open a history book, read about treatment of blacks, treatment of chinks, colonial history. And come to the correct conclusion that the fundamental basis of race has always been social.

I've already read history, thank you

And no, it's more than just "muh Europeans caused oppression"

 

[AtrociousCitizen]

them shitting in condoms then FREEZING their fucking turds to masturbate with later…

Never heard that before

 

[Corvus]

Im too high to read that but im scared to look a foid in the eye anyway