Analgesic.Spectre

An intellectual miasma exists within public discussion of racial equality. Most people readily accept differences between individuals. Most will even accept that genetics plays some kind of part in said individual differences, but all differences suddenly become environmentally causes when cognitive abilities in racial groups are judged. Not only is this wrong, but these people essentially have blind faith in what appear to be miracles.

Different groups would have had different environments to contend with. For example, some places may have had malaria prominent, and so developed immunity to it became necessary. Some animals may have needed group coordination to kill, and hence social ability was now selected for. Harsh Winters required pre-planning and delayed gratification (saving food), and so those who had the ability to develop these traits were selected for. Clearly, prima facie, there is need for certain cognitive abilities.

Also add culture to the mix, and evolution speeds up by a factor of 100. Moreover, in the last 5,000 years, the advent of civilisation started selecting for people who were capable of being civilised (in various ways) (https://www.pnas.org/content/104/52/20753.abstract). For example, England's "war on murder", a time in English history wherein criminals, of all kinds, were sentenced to death for their crimes, had a significant eugenic effect on criminality (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/147470491501300114). If all races were equally criminal, then England selectively killing off criminals would mean that those countries not doing that would have more people with criminal tendencies.

But we also have physical differences which demonstrates that differences do exist...

We have more than a century worth of research which shows that the races differ in brain size. Sean Last (2016) created a comprehensive article detailing these differences and why they exist (hint: it's partially genetic). In short, the arguments for their existence, and the fact that they are at least partially genetic, is as follows: "the differences are present at birth, around the world, the Black/White brain size gap is not smaller today than it was 100 years ago, mixed race individuals have brain sizes in-between their parent’s races, and, finally, traits that typically co-evolve with brain size differ racially in a way that mirrors brain size differences." (https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/brain-size-race-and-iq/).

It is also possible to predict someone's race by looking at the shape of their brain, because the human brain contains "rich ancestral information" (https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(15)00671-5).

Key points:

- 2015 work by Ju Lu, Yi Zuo and the University of California

- Attempting to further understanding of mice brains (and eventually apply work to human brains)

- Using a beam of light, were able to make mice forget learned behaviour

- Able to do this using AS-PaRac -- which causes changes to the input part of neurons which communicate with each other (dentrites)

- Basically, tips of dentrites grow bigger when something new is learned. Light makes them shrink. Therefore, memory loss

- For the future, the researchers are looking to manually grow the dentrites, in order to make mice know behaviour they've never learned (like that programming scene in the Matrix)

I wiped the sweat with my forearm as the typical Australian Summer sun scorched anything it could find. With a faded green and white garden glove, I clawed a clump of dirt in a garden, wafting that earthy, moist smell. Movement caught my eye. It was a shiny black with a brown bulb. It disappeared into the bark-laden mulch. I knew exactly what it was: The Sydney Funnel Web spider. It was one of those 'did I really just see that?' moments.

Sydney Funnel Web spiders are becoming a rarity, due to deforestation and an extreme dislike from one of their top predators: humans. I had never seen this spider before irl, yet I'd heard plenty about their kill potential. Having come face-to-face with the deadliest spider, I was interested to see how deadly it was, and I only found out after the encounter that it was the deadliest in the world.

From the article itself (https://ednieuw.home.xs4all.nl/Spiders/Nasty-Spiders/Demystification-toxicity-spiders.htm), we can get a clear reading on how deadly this spider can be: 

Interestingly, something which is usually the opposite for spider species, the male is far more potent in terms of toxicity, being anywhere from 4-6 higher than female venom. The male also tends to be the ones people find, because the females rarely (if ever) come out of their holes, unless it's to capture nearby prey. So it's important to know the difference between the two:

Finally, in researching the internet for information on the spider, I came across someone who got even closer with pretty much exactly what I found: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6MN1DmQAxI&t=311s). Just goes to show what is a frightening experience for me, is a cool idea for a dare to someone else.

As was recently brought to light, I used to use profile pics that were not of me, on my account back on DDO (Zarroette). I want to apologise for misleading everyone over the years. I do have an explanation as to why I did this, but that doesn't excuse the fact that I need to apologise. So, I am sorry for misleading you.

As for the explanation, I made that decision to use those pictures when I was 15, depressed out of mind, suicidal, and thoroughly unhappy with the way I looked. Whilst it was the wrong thing to use those pictures, I hope you can be more lenient on me, considering what I was going through.

I stopped using the pictures about 2.5 years ago. I stopped using them because I knew I was doing the wrong thing. I should have been honest about why I stopped using them, instead of keeping people under the impression. I attempted to hide like a scared, little girl, hoping no one would notice what I had done. My sin was omission, and for that I apologise. I should have been stronger and owned my past mistake.

My last apology will be for Wylted and for anyone else who saw my lie. Wylted asked me, in the recently deleted AMA thread (that I created), whether those pictures were me. Those pictures were not me, but I told him that they were. Despite this happening several weeks ago, I'm still disgusted with the fact that I lied to him. I prided myself on being truthful, and I shot that to death with my post to him. I am sorry, Wylted. I am sorry to anyone who saw me lie. I was absolutely pathetic. I got scared and couldn't accept the consequences of my actions. That isn't good enough, and so I need to publicly apologise like this. I am going to find a way to punish myself later, because lying so blatantly is beyond dreadful to me. I do not want to be the person who lies like that.

In any case, I hope you forgive me for my dishonest actions. I am sorry.

Personally, I have zero interest in playing videogames. They indicate that a person has very little going on in their lives, they are addicted to wasting their time, and that the person playing them likely has shoddy social skills.

Having said that, I've recently been wondering as to why a girl can get on Twitch, play a videogame rather poorly and receive a bucketload of money. I understand that the girls in question dress in certain ways to enhance attraction, but wow, why do guys give them so much money? Is there some kind of trick? Is it easy to do?

Just wondering...

"You have power over your mind, not outside events. Realise this and you will find strength" - Marcus Aurelius

These words have proven incredibly valuable throughout my life thus far, and I'll explain why.

Whenever I think about the world and all its problems, I am overwhelmed. I find that reminding myself of Marcus' words helps to shrink the size of the world in to a tiny, manageable sphere. I can see where my efforts are best delegated, rather than having my head spin. Sure, there will be events beyond my control that will affect me negatively, but there is little use in being worried about them -- something I have to constantly remind myself of.

Rather than banal platitudes of 'just be positive', or something equally as useless in its nebulous abstraction, Marcus' words have me focusing on  how my thoughts can help me do the best with what I have.

It's okay to be powerless, in the grand scheme of things, if your input cannot alter the result. Realising that you determine whether you to live in a fuliginous cesspool, or a non-stop golden opportunity dream world, helps so much in preparing to face the world.

So when reality grows tough, I always first think 'what can I do?', rather than wallow in the despairs of misfortune. It's about having a realistic, positive interpretation, rather than merely being ignorantly positive.

It's an unwritten law on Dart that your topic/post ratio defines you as a human. Maintaining a healthy ratio is crucial to spiritual development and self-actualisation. If you fail to maintain a healthy balance, people will talk ill of you behind your back, your significant other will cheat, and you will not have the power of God and anime on your side. For these reason, this will be the most important thread of 2019.

Here is a list of the tiers. Added are brief descriptions of likelihoods at each tier. Neither the tier list or descriptions are open to debate:

(Tier 4) <1%: You are a mindless sheeple who even Alex Jones can't convince that the NWO is taking over. Your posts are littered with spam and socially awkward phrases. You are likely mentally ill with urges to play Mafia. You blend into the background of any social interaction in irl, and the worse thing is that you prefer it that way. People, including those on Dart, probably don't know you have an account on here. You inspired J.K Rowling's invention of the Invisibility Cloak. When people do find that you have an account, they feign kindness and compassion, but secretly are disgusted with your cowardice. When we find you, you will be punished.

(Tier 3) 1-5%: You have fallen upon hard times. Mentally disturbed, you either refuse to accept the importance of topic/post reality, or you're too impotent to enact your will. People with healthier topic/post ratios will pity you, and so you will be offered help. You must accept their grace with open arms. Do not give in to the temptation to play Mafia. Do not post poorly formatted reaction memes in forums. Stop the descent into irreversible escapism and begin making topics of substance.

(Tier 2) 5.01-9%: You are mentally sound but lacking the courage to stand up for what is right. Your threads can be appreciated, but people more readily appreciate the thread, rather than you. Your significant other will likely leave if he/she discovers your topics/posts percentage, but there is hope in your life. Remember that life is tough -- don't blame yourself entirely for having this topic/post ratio. Chase the topic/post ratio you know is right.

(Tier 1) 9.01-10.99%: You understand the grand importance of topic/post ratios. You have hordes of hot, attractive men/women/both continuously tailing you, pleading for your recognition. Your ratio is so other-worldly that genderologists on Tumblr are unable to define your gender. Bsh and Virtuoso are incapable of banning you because the ban button literally disappears, whenever you enter this magnificent tier. With words alone, I cannot begin to express the virtuous and noble nature that this topic/post ratio brings.

Legend says that if you reach the golden 10% ratio, you will finally be welcomed into the Dart Elite.

(Tier 3) 11-25%: You have become careless or drunk on your topic/post ratio, and thus given into the temptation of gluttony. You are a dreadful sight to behold, because you have corrupted the sanctity of the topic/post ratio. Every moment you linger with this ratio, edb8 becomes more viable. Reject gluttony. Do not toy with the powers of topic/post ratios. Accept the virtuous nature of 10% or else suffer the consequences.

(Tier 5) +25%: You drown every social event with unwanted ideas. No one listens to what you say, and in fact they cannot wait for you to leave. Your threads are used in torture techniques by U.S and Ugandan governments. You are a pariah, a wicked nuisance who is incapable of redemption. I am honestly writing this in anger of how much you are a thoroughly sub-human piece of shit. DO NOT plague us with your presence. You are to leave immediately after requesting your account be permanently and wholly deleted. When the day of rope occurs (i.e. ad spam and forfeit glitches), you will be the first in the noose. Begone.

It seems common sense to state that stress is something which is negative. After all, we tend to avoid stressful situations, and being under stress isn't something we naturally enjoy.

However, there are actually several ways in which the body can respond to stressful circumstances, and some of them might be surprisingly useful. Psychologist Kelly McGonigal posits the idea that if you feel challenged when stress takes hold, it can actually help you shift into a state wherein the body has increased blood-flow to both your muscles and brain. This, in turn, allows the brain to pay better attention to everything in your environment, which is better than the tunnel vision experienced in a fight or flight response. To be terse, you're basically smarter with a challenge response to stress.

So, in the future, don't become anxious when you see your sweat, and don't try to calm down when your heart beats faster. View your stress as a resources, see the stressful event as a challenge, and you will enter a state which is superior.

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaVKXx767rw)

"Between men and women, there is no friendship possible. There is passion, enmity, worship, and love, but no friendship" - Oscar Wilde.

No longer being alive, we can only guess at how Oscar concluded this.

However, I'd like to critique the quote itself, at least on its conclusions.

Friendship, to me, involves a mutual connection that benefits both people. Better friendships dissolve the natural boundaries people have towards other people, because larger levels of trust are involved.

I can agree that the majority of men and women can't be friends. From personal experience, most of my discussions with men have devolved into variations of suggesting sexual intercourse (suggestions which only the man seems to give). Some take as little as one response before they devolve into said mode, whilst others take weeks or months. Certainly, these relationships are not ones in which friendship could flourish, because they are forged by the more powerful bonding agent known as lust.

Are we to assume that all interactions between men and women are as such? I, for one, have experienced conversations, some of which were extended over months, that have never devolved into status descriptions of penises, or inquires into my attire. Am I to assume that underlying the interaction, the man was biding his time to spring the sexual innuendo? Or perhaps there was a genuine friendship forming?

Can I not trust a man will my wellbeing, if he is not spellbound by lust? I feel, that in Oscar's conclusion, that this has to be an implication. Therefore, I'm not convinced that friendship between men and women can never manifest.

Found in Plato's dialogue, the modified version is this: Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?

(1) If divine command theory is true then either (i) morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good, or (ii) morally good acts are morally good because they are willed by God

(2) If (i) morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good, then they are morally good independent of God's will

(3) It is not the case that morally good acts are morally good independent of God's will

Therefore:

(4) It is not the case that (i) morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good

(5) If (ii) morally good acts are morally good because they are willed by God, then there is no reason either to care about God's moral goodness or to worship him

(6) There are reasons both to care about God's moral goodness and to worship him

Therefore:

(7) It is not the case that (ii) morally good acts are morally good because they are willed by God

Therefore:

(8) Divine command theory is false

As technology continues to progress, human ethics are bombarded with new questions. One of those questions involves the usage of people's cells.

Without question, using the cells of a person, whilst the cells are still attached, isn't ethical, barring explicit consent. However, if the cells are to be removed, should there be consent? It was a question raised at a workshop for the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center's Department of Bioethics. 

Currently, researchers are allowed to use people's cells without their permission, so long as the personal identifiers are removed (i.e. anonymized).

Grady et al. (cited in the link below) outlined 5 reasons why consent for usage of cells might be of interest:

(1) It respects donors

(2) It allows donors to have control over whether their samples are used for research purposes

(3) It allows donors to decide whether the risks and burdens of research are acceptable to them

(4) It allows donors to decide whether they want to contribute to the goals of the research as opposed to only using their samples for particular areas of interest

(5) It promotes transparency and public trust.

Furthermore, and this is a question that wasn't raised in the internet article, is what happens if a human clone is made, and then cells are taken from that human clone. Are the cells the property of the human clone? A similar question: what if robotic wires were taken from a human cyborg (assuming they exist in the future). Would that require consent?

Naturally, science isn't bound by ethical laws. It will be interesting to see how humans of the future handle these questions, or perhaps ignore these questions.

In my experience, credit cards have a bad reputation. Horror stories, such as having the overdue interest rocket well over 25%, are sometimes heard.

However, also in my experience, if you're able to be disciplined and organised with your credit card usage, there are perks:

1) Automatic extended warranty protection for any purchase

2) Any fraud doesn't result in you losing money immediately, like it would with a debit card

3) Rebate points and cashback (e.g. receiving 2.5% cashback almost offsets inflation, and you didn't have to invest a cent)

So, as you can see, credit cards are a handy tool for responsible adults.

That's the headline to the most profoundly hypocritical decisions I have ever encountered. I'm not sure a fabricated scenario could be more hypocritical than this. Let's unpack the hypocrisy, and then muse over what it could mean:

1) White people are banned from an anti-racism rally (seems a bit "racist")

2) Men are banned from a rally by a diversity officer (seems anti-diversity)

3) Men are banned for sexism (seems pretty sexist)

4) Rally is actually open only to BME (Black and minority ethnics) women (see all parentheses above)

(https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3051977/Anger-anti-racism-rally-banned-white-people-attending.html)

I can't imagine anyone defending this cataclysmic mess, so lets posit reasons as to how this overt hypocrisy is acceptable in someone's mind.

Firstly, the term "racist" has no concrete meaning, and is essentially a slanderous term used when feelings are hurt. Since young people, at least in the education I've seen, are indoctrinated from an age (5 years of age) that doesn't allow them to think critically, to think that white people have done horrible things in the past, and that this horrible history proves they are racist, it's no wonder the term "racist" isn't consistently applied (https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/174).

Secondly, I think this exposes what racial and gender equality is about: extracting resources from out-groups (i.e. people of different gender and race). Certainly, the underlying principles found here are horribly contradicted, so there must be an alternate train of thought, and a train of thought designed to extract resources, under the false pretence of a higher principle, is the chosen method. This racial zealotry is not surprising, considering that race is the most important factor, in regards to a personal identity (and thus politics, too) (https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/107).

Lastly, this is not the first time I've discovered flagrant racial hatred/exclusionary tactics against white people, particularly white men (https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/915). What does this say of society when such racial hatred seems ignored or even encouraged?

I'm going to post the abstract and "highlights" from this paper, purely because they are a seriously excellent summary of the paper:

Abstract: "Two dysgenic models of declining general intelligence have been proposed. The first posits that since the Industrial Revolution those with low g have had a reproductive advantage over those with high g. The second posits that relaxed purifying selection against deleterious mutations in modern populations has led to g declining due to mutation accumulation. Here, a meta-analytic estimate of the decline due to selection is computed across nine US and UK studies, revealing a loss of .39 points per decade (combined N = 202,924). By combining findings from a high-precision study of the effects of paternal age on offspring g with a study of paternal age and offspring de novo mutation numbers, it is proposed that, 70 de novo mutations per familial generation should reduce offspring g by 2.94 points, or .84 points per decade. Combining the selection and mutation accumulation losses yields a potential overall dysgenic loss of 1.23 points per decade, with upper and lower bound values ranging from 1.92 to .53 points per decade. This estimate is close to those from studies employing the secular slowing of simple reaction time as a potential indicator of declining g, consistent with predictions that mutation accumulation may play a role in these findings."

(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886914006278)

I'd like to elaborate on the first dysgenic model, because I think I can add something worthwhile. Since the Industrial revolution, comfort has become more commonplace in countries, because production is more efficient. No longer does a person have to be self-sustaining, but rather needs only to specialise in an area of labour, in order to generate personal income. I think this is sufficiently self-evident to be assumed axiomatic.

Thus, as 3rd World immigrants, from areas such as Africa and the Middle East, are given access to these Western countries (U.S and U.K), we see their 3rd World breeding rates (addressed here: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1065) lessened, but remain higher than that of native populations (http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/muslims/pf_15-04-02_projectionstables75/). Considering the lower average I.Qs of African and Middle Eastern countries, when compared to Western White countries (https://www.worlddata.info/iq-by-country.php), we now have an elaboration on why the Industrial revolution could cause an I.Q. drop, therefore adding to the credibility of the paper.

Intuitively, we assume that as a person's social status increases, so too do their options for breeding, and thus we assume they are more likely to breed. This is somewhat true of men, but not so of women.

A study by Hopcroft (2015) found a negative correlation with personal income, intelligence and education (measures of social status) and the number of offspring a woman has. However, this study was conducted within contemporary U.S,(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513814001330), but there does seem to be a worldwide pattern. If we take countries not exactly known for having high personal income, education or women's rights, such as Niger and Somalia, we can see that their fertility rates are 7.2 and 6.3, whereas the U.S. sits at 1.8, and other 1st World Countries, such as Australia and the U.K, sit at almost identical rates.

Perhaps an explanation for this is women's hypergamy. Hypergamy is a necessary tool for women, given their role in reproduction. Moreover, men can take 30 seconds to fulfil their part in sexual reproduction, whereas a woman takes 9 months to fulfil hers. Thus, since a woman's capacity to breed is far more restricted, she needs to be choosier in her partners. So, in relation to this article, as a woman increases her social status, her potential breeding partners decreases also, because she doesn't want to trade down, given her hypergamy (that would be an evolutionary bad decision). This is not to say that women are "gold diggers" (as this stupid Wikipedia article says: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergamy), but rather they have been programmed, through evolution, to feel this way.

Another explanation, not one which is mutually exclusive to the above, is that women in poorer countries feel it necessary to breed more, given the likelihood of infant mortality. Again, to use data as illustration, Niger and Somalia have infant mortality rates of 48 and 80 per 1000, whereas the U.S., Australia and the U.K. all have infant mortality rates of under 10, and Australia has 3 (https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.IMRT.IN?year_high_desc=false).

He was such a lovely user. I can't believe he's been banned:

The long purported conception of more males falling outside the mean I.Q. has, for me, finally discovered an answer. If you're not acquainted with this conception, this graph should suffice: (https://blacklabellogic.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/male-and-female-iq-distributions.jpg). In short, the conception helps to explain why we have fewer outstanding females with tasks associated with super high I.Qs (e.g. notable inventors, decorated politicians etc.), but also why males tend to exhibit more braindead behaviour (e.g. riding a shopping cart down a hill). The implications of the male-female I.Q. distribution conception are numerous and have yet to be properly elaborated upon here, but not the purpose of this thread.

Instead, the purpose of this thread is to purport why there is such a difference in distribution. Strauss and Strauss (2009) discovered that it was largely the X chromosome that was accountable for the difference. To be terse, the X chromosome is largely responsible for brain develop (and also has approximately 1,100 genes. The Y chromosome has only about 50). Females are born with two X chromosomes, but due to the overwhelming difference in genes between X and Y chromosomes, nature has evolved to balance this between males and females, and so female bodies will naturally determine most of those X chromosomal genes to be inactivated (at random).

Hence, whilst males have only one set of X chromosomal genes, females are far more likely to have a set that is nearer the mean, due to exceptional genes having a chance of being inactive.

(http://precedings.nature.com/documents/3238/version/1/files/npre20093238-1.pdf)

Typically, Cold Reading is found within scams and trickery, in order to make people think you are able to determine a wealth of information about their lives. In actuality, the Cold Reader is proposing broad generalities, waiting for a visceral reaction in the recipient (if possible), and then adjusting their reading accordingly. Whilst I personally, for obvious reasons, think fortune telling and similar quackery are bunk, what is not bunk are the psychological effects Cold Reading has on people. Rather, the psychological effects are quite fascinating.

Firstly, the ability to make logical observations, based on the physical (i.e. haircut, manner of speech, age, body language etc.) is interesting. It's interesting because on the surface, you'd think guesses weren't able to so accurately evaluate people's lives, let alone guess consistently to warrant quackery professions (i.e. fortune telling). This demonstrates the overwhelming plethora of information someone's mere existence offers to the world, yet also how remarkably similar people are, all at the same time (fascinating!)

Secondly, moving into why Cold Reading is effective, we need to address the Forer effect (also called the Barnum effect). In short, tailoring information to a person, even if it's vague or generalised, causes them to think the information is accurate. This is especially true if confirmation bias is activated (wherein the Cold Reader accurately guesses what a person already thinks about themselves). The reason this effect is effective, is because people insert their own meaning into vague, generalised statements, and then have the option to confirmation bias their way into believing it. We also see this effect in politicians, wherein the politician knows that if he/she is sufficiently vague, people will insert their own meaning, *and* think the message is being tailored to them. So, when you're intentionally being vague or generalised, people actually think you're tailoring your message to them (again: fascinating!)

So profound are the effects of Cold Reading that they consistently trigger ironic results.

I really haven't had many worthwhile conversations on Dart. Most of the dialogue on here is inane banter, which is fine in portioned amounts, but tedious and pointless in large doses. The rest of the dialogue tends to be shallow opinions, which are poorly masqueraded as intellectual thought. It seems like I run into the same stupid cliches and debunked talking points, whenever I post something outside of the box, or when I post something with a large amounts of references. It is disappointing to think and write heavily on a topic, only for some idiot dickhead to post a drive-by response. This was also a problem on DDO, but at least you had enough non-idiot dickheads to post worthwhile things.

I thought most people came to sites like these to have interesting, intellectual conversations, of which the vast majority of people aren't capable of having irl (not to mention the social blowback). Instead, it's now clear that the majority of people on here (not all, to be fair) are here to waste everyone's time with half-baked posts, shallow opinions, inane activity, mafia and petty drama. Again, these things, to a small degree, help to keep a site interesting. But when the site is saturated in all this garbage, it defeats the purpose of a site like this. Nowadays, I think that a large proportion of the site has poor social skills, and the reason they come here is because irl socialising is too hard for them. 

I'm also not a fan of this moderation. Bsh seems to be doing a much better job, and I haven't seem much of Castin, but the mods before that were dreadful. I got banned out of nowhere, with no explanation, nor specification of how long it would be. I can't remember exactly how long it was (because I just stopped caring), but I remember attempting to log in like a month and a half after it happened, and was honestly shocked to see it work. That's poor moderation. This kind of incompetent moderation happen with other people, too. I've also seen some bloody inconsistent moderation, too, wherein some people have nine lives, whereas others have a gun to their head at all times. Airmax wasn't perfect, but he sure as hell was better than this, and it makes you realise how often he did get it right.

I might get an ironic banning, or perhaps this post will be deleted, but either way I don't care and it will only prove my points.

After all the hype, this site failed to deliver. 

A research team, lead by Wieland Huttner, found that genes for brain size were found only in humans. Quote:

"Through isolating subpopulations of human brain, they noticed the gene ARHGAP11B: it is only found in humans and in our closest relatives, the Neanderthals and Denisova-Humans, but not in chimpanzees...This gene manages to trigger brain stem cells to form a bigger pool of stem cell... We noticed that the gene ARHGAP11B is especially active in basal brain stem cells. These cells are really important for the expansion of the neocortex during evolution."

This is an intriguing discover, especially when considering that chimpanzees share approximately 99% of the genes humans have, and yet humans have this ARHGAP11B, and three times the brain size.

Further intrigue is found in the fact that the gene also works in mice, despite mice not naturally producing it.

As for the implications of differing brain sizes, that would require a different thread...

(https://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-02-gene-brain-size-humans.html)

It's no longer the fact that differing racial groups have racial preference and interest towards their own. It's now a fact that white groups are under attack simply for being white.

Whenever I heard someone bloviate about the power of positive thinking, that "just being happy" was all that you needed, I rolled my eyes and thought 'here we go, another instance of mindless platitudes making people think they know the deeper mechanics of human psychology'.

However, there appears to be sufficient research to suggest that merely being optimistic, even when there is no reason to be, should be encouraged in life, as this article reads:

"The study found that women who were optimistic had a significantly reduced risk of dying from several major causes of death — including cancer, heart disease, stroke, respiratory disease, and infection — over an eight-year period, compared with women who were less optimistic."

...

"The most optimistic women (the top quartile) had a nearly 30 percent lower risk of dying from any of the diseases analyzed in the study compared with the least optimistic (the bottom quartile), the study found. The most optimistic women had a 16 percent lower risk of dying from cancer; 38 percent lower risk of dying from heart disease; 39 percent lower risk of dying from stroke; 38 percent lower risk of dying from respiratory disease; and 52 percent lower risk of dying from infection."

(https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2016/12/optistic-women-live-longer-are-healthier/)

It is conceivable that the optimistic women are the ones who are not experiencing life's hardships, hence why they are optimistic. It is also possible that this is a matter of correlation, rather than any significant causation.

Nonetheless, it is nothing short of fascinating that being a mindless, smiling drone, unable to ponder the complex, often terrifying facets of life, has a better chance of survival than a well-educated realist.

A case for the existence of human races is best made by answering two questions:

(1) is there sufficient variation within humans for there to be subspecies?

(2) if so, is there sufficient variation to sort data into discrete subspecies?

Let's address (1):

When comparing humans to other species with sufficient variation to necessitate subspecies (race), we find that humans reach an comparable levels. Woodley (2009) compared the heterozygosity in humans with other species, all of which had wide ranges (https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/woodley-2009-is-homo-sapiens-polytypic-human-taxonomic-diversity-and-its-implications.pdf). Just so we're clear, heterozygostiy is the probability that, at any given gene location, two organisms of that species will have a different alleles (gene variant) at that specific location. Despite humans being anywhere from 99.5-99.9% the same (humans are 98.7% the same as chimpanzees, too (http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics)), it is possible to have more instances of variance than similarity, it's just that the magnitude of those differences accumulates to 99.5-99.9%.

Woodley's data is under the heading "Table 2" in the first link provided.

His conclusions (found under the heading "discussion" were that,

Thus, yes, there is sufficient variation between humans to warrant subspecies.

Now let's address (2):

The best way to sort human genetic data into discrete groups (subspecies) is through correspondence between genetic cluster and geography. Using as little as 3 human subspecies categories (K=3: African, Asian and European), Bamshad (2003) was able find almost 100% correspondence between cluster genetic and geographical location, given that 160 loci (a fixed position on a chromosome) were used (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180234/). 

Alloco (2007) conducted a somewhat similar study, looking at random locations of SNPs (a variation in a single nucleotide that occurs at a specific position in the genome). Using only 100 randomly selected SNPs, 97% correspondence between self-reported ancestry and best-fit genetic cluster (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1828730/pdf/1471-2164-8-68.pdf). 

In both cases, there was sufficient variation to sort data into discrete subspecies (race), as pre-defined races fit genetic clusters with near-perfect accuracy.

Hence, the human races exist.

Part of the issue of living in this information-centric age, is the default understanding that humans are logical, and given enough explanation, could understand why things need to be done certain ways. This thread exists to demonstrate how woefully illogical, and thus unobjective, humans are.

The Asch Conformity Experiments (1950s) were conducted to see how humans would yield or defy the majority opinion (using very simple questions, simple enough for a toddler to get correct). When the majority were giving the wrong answers, only 63.2% of the test subjects were able to get the answer right. On all tests, only 5% were always swayed by the crowd, but only 25% constantly defied the majority's wrong opinions. Therefore, the rest were swayed by the majority's wrong opinion some of the time. From these experiments, we can see humans distorting reality to fit in with the majority.

Cognitive dissonance is another example of human inobjectivity. Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) conducted an experiment to observe how humans deal with cognitive dissonance. The experiment used a Stanford University student (not some random dummy) to complete a boring task. Once the task was completed, the student was then offered a large sum of money to set the experiment up for someone else, provided the student said that the experiment was interesting. Despite the student initially saying that the task was boring, when the student was offered money to say that it was interesting, he suddenly found explanations as to why it was interesting, and the researchers found that the student was starting to believe the experiment was interesting. Cognitive dissonance distorts reality, based on one's own interest.

The Halo Effect is the idea that a singular positive trait seen in a person will result in other people viewing that person with all their traits as being good. Nisbett & Wilson (1977) found that when two sets of students watched the same lecture, but with the lecturer in different moods. If the students saw the lecturer in a happy mood, they would attribute other positive attributes to the lecturer, and vice-versa. Students stood by these judgements, despite being informed of this bias, and also given opportunities to revoke their judgement. Most people are completely not aware of this Halo Effect, and how irrational they are being when it's in play.

Perhaps the most fascinating conclusion we can draw from human unobjectivity is that ideas of Democracy are lauded, despite most human's inability to vote with any kind of objectivity (and also the myriad of other problems with Democracy: (https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/136)). It takes surprisingly little for humans to become unobjective, and thus illogical.

A plethora of times I've seen words to the effect of, "IQ isn't necessarily an accurate indicator of intelligence" (although that particular quote is far less egregious than I've seen), implying that I.Q. is often inaccurate in measuring intelligence. Rather than individually addressing instances of said claims, I'll expound upon the topic here in a holistic way.

Generally, I.Q. tests are a combination of measuring: pattern recognition, verbal comprehension, mathematical ability, vocabulary and short-term memory. Whilst these are not perfect measurements of intelligence, they are heavily correlated with predictions of how well peers will rate a person's intelligence, school and workplace abilities:  (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/per.799 ; https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00221325.1979.10533422 ;  http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/sbp/sbp/1977/00000005/00000001/art00016). Unless people's perception of intelligence is wild guessing, it matches measurements of I.Q. exceedingly well.

In fact, I.Q. predicts income and educational achievement (things which, I hope we can agree, are indicators of intelligence) better than parental socioeconomic status (http://www.emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Intelligence-and-socioeconomic-success-A-meta-analytic-review-of-longitudinal-research.pdf). Not only that, but I.Q. is the best predictor of educational level, occupational level and income level (again, more indications of intelligence). Surprisingly, I.Q. even beats 'grades' as a predictor of educational level. The average sample size for the groups is approximately 97,000: (http://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/the-validity-of-iq/). 

Whilst there isn't a panacea to alleviate the concern of I.Q. being intelligence, there is an abundance of research to suggest that I.Q. probably measures intelligence.

After witnessing an interesting yet ineffective conversation on racism in a thread (this one: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/160?page=1), I decided to formally congeal my thoughts. I think the thread touched on some truths, but it did not do so accurately, thus the necessity of this thread.

The term "racism" is most certainly nebulous, and I suspect this is by design. What constitutes racism exactly? In short, it is anything that references race:

Hitler enabling mass genocide of Jews? That's racism.

The black-white I.Q. gap documented in a scholarly fashion? That's racism.

Observing the fact that certain sections of a nation have disproportionately higher volumes of certain races? That's racism.

A white man lecturing on another race's history? That's racism.

Suggesting that separate races exist? That's racism.

Being white? That's racism.

The long answer is that dependent on the individual, different definitions of racism will be found, but all with the same zealotry -- this is a critical point. Most people will not have qualms with labelling Hitler a racist, but calling a white man racist, purely because he is white, is a tough pill to swallow for even the most Antifa of Antifas. So, whenever the label "racism" is awarded, negative affect results, regardless of whether a concrete definition has been established (it hasn't, which is why I suspect this is by design: it's an incredibly powerful political tool). Moreover, it is not that racism is meaningless, but that its definition is wildly varied.

The sinister part comes when you consider that empirical conclusions (there is a black-white I.Q. gap) are linked with extreme racial hatred (justification for killing millions of Jews), but only with one word: racism. Instead of being able to discuss the validity of black-white I.Q. gaps, we're no longer able to do so under the threat of parity with Hitler. This suppression of speech continues with the race notion, wherein we are threatened with racism whenever racial groups/differences are suggested, even ones that are benign (e.gs. Kenyan marathon accomplishments are partially a result of genetics; Asians don't sweat, hence the lack of deodorant in their countries).

It is this disingenuous conflation, rather than complete meaninglessness, that plagues the definition of "racism". A far better approach would be to abandon the hysterical term, and develop a distinct definition for people of the Hitler variety: racial hatred. That way, we can avoid disingenuous conflation.

In the past 50 years or so, sex has transpired without the need for explicit rejection or consent. By virtue of the fact that a woman is not physically rejecting your advances, it is apparent that she is just fine with you forcing the issue. If she has to resort to a firm "no" (as opposed to a playful "no"), then you've, as a man, already missed at least several cues of rejection. The benefit of this approach is that it allows sex to be sexy. Women enjoy being taken by a masculine man, and men enjoy the masculinity found in leading the interaction.

Skipping forward to the current decade, and the conception of "yes means yes" is all but ruining the sexual experience. Nothing kills the mood quicker, for both men and women, than the man grovelling for permission. Yet people are dispensing this unsexy add-on of sex all around college campuses, requesting revision of laws (http://endrapeoncampus.org/yes-means-yes/).

Clearly, this is a byproduct of Feminist philosophy, and is thus an extension of undesirable facets of female psychology. Women need to understand that men are unable to just know what she wants, and that courting attempts, by unworthy suitors, may eventuate. In reality, the ideal environment for Feminists would be:

1) Unattractive men are not legally allowed to flirt with women

2) Attractive men just knowing when a woman likes her, and thus will automatically court her

3) Men who have, in the eyes of women, unfairly garnered sex, are to be legally prosecuted (e.gs. lying about ownership of a big boat; the woman being drunk and having sex with a man she would have rejected, had she been sober)

This Feminist utopia is a hellscape for men, as men are unable to naturally gauge their attractiveness to a woman, without flirting with her, thus it devolves into Russian Roulette. Hence, as societies draw closer to it, we see counterpushes from the MRM and MGTOW, suggesting anything from men fighting back against the misandric culture, to walking away from women altogether.

Personally, I would like to see women held responsible for their decisions. We need to stop enabling the pricklier facets of female psychology, and encourage women to realise their potential to become fully functioning, responsible adults, rather than little girls protected from their emotional whims by laws. They are more than capable of owning their actions, and I think would derive great pride and respect from being recognised as fully autonomous individuals, far more than any Feminist notion of imaginary incorrigibility has to offer.

Routinely, I find issue with people's inability to provide evidence for their arguments, coupled with a reversal of burden. Perhaps laziness incites this. Perhaps ignorance incites this. Nonetheless, it is ineffective argumentation. Let's look at a couple examples I have encountered:

Stronn, who failed to post anything of substance in that thread, suggests that because someone claims Democracy fails, that an alternative system needs to be proven superior. It is not mutually exclusive that (1) Democracy fails, and (2) every other system fails.

Zeichen also engaged in this logical fallacy. When she agreed that a "willingness to engage in casual sexual relations is the intention of the [OkCupid's] users", I asked for evidence. As quoted above, Zeichen attempted to flip the BoP by suggesting I had to prove something else, as if that had anything to do with his bare assertion (quite a dishonest burden reversal, and one I suspect was made intentionally).

Have you too encountered this reversal of burden?

After lifting the humiliating shackles of Traditional Conservatism, and unhinging herself from the infuriating jealousy and irrational fear of men proffered by Feminism, she finds herself in the realm of reality.

She no longer desires enslavement to the cuckold husband, because she is responsible and capable of forging a path in her life. She doesn't see herself as a goddess, unable to pay her own bills and carve her own career. She doesn't see herself infantilised and incapable of responsible action -- far from a "do nothing bitch". She's ready to embrace attraction to the alpha male -- the one she's truly attracted to. She's ready to consider sexual relationships in the honest light of exchanging resources, rather than the nebulous and deceitful "love".

She's no longer forging a career purely to spite men. She thinks about the strengths of women, instead of destroying the strengths of man. She's not afraid of being feminine, but is ready to value masculinity. She's no longer having reckless sex to spite her absent father. She's no longer perpetually victimised by the emotional lacerations Progressive dog-whistlers inflict. She's ready to forge her destiny without seething at the shadow of men. 

This is a woman in the aftermath of Traditional Conservatism and Feminism.

Implicit in the conception of Pick Up Artistry/Pick Up Artists (PUA) is the notion that a man is in control of the male-female interaction, and that he can find true masculinity in courting women. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, it could be argued that the PUA does not surpass the testosterone sapping slavery of a wage-slave cuck, in that both are subservient to gynocentrism.

You see, the notions of alpha and beta (and omega and the rest), whilst obtainable for men, are determined solely by women. Thus, whilst a PUA engages in a routine, "game"-laden ritual to court a woman, he is doing so in a way which he thinks she likes. Hence, despite PUAs claiming that they are leading women in an attractive display of masculinity, they willingly bow to the whims of the female mind.

Now, due to women being as comfortable as they've ever been (welfare, capacity to earn etc.), men providing resources isn't enough. This is where female hypergamy is sent into overdrive, and because these PUAs are desperate to enamour the female mind, male competition morphs. Instead of men competing in healthy ways which are a net benefit for society (science, academia, athleticism etc. -- things women are not particularly interested in), we're now relegated to bars and clubs, selling our souls to posturing, machismo and violence, all because that's where the women are and that's how I can validate myself as a "real man" (until, if I'm lucky, the next morning). This produces nothing of real value to society, and is deeply unfulfilling to a man (it's essentially a drug addiction).

So in PUA selling you "game" and techniques in which to conquer women, they're really selling you the chains of female nature's whims.

This is the fraud of PUA.

In the Western world, to state that you are pro Democracy seems redundant. It has become an accepted paragon of Western civilisation, much like free speech or equality. Despite the popular opinion, Democracy is a failed political framework. Chiefly, there are four main problems with Democracy:

1) Tragedy of the Commons -- it is unwise for the individual to spend time to researching issues, given the insignificant impact it has on election outcomes. This is especially true when other voters, be it entirely uninformed, lacking in I.Q. or ideologically brainwashed, hold precisely as much voting power as the complete opposite. Therefore, Democratic voting is contingent on individuals acting irrationally.

2) Bundled political issues -- too often is a voter faced with a choice of the lesser evil, due to political leaders (the two or three whom have a shot at winning) rarely aligning 100% with your own beliefs. For example, if you believed that animal rights was the only thing which required fixing, yet the politicians espousing your view were in favour of radical reforms, you have to choose between fixing animal rights and suffering political change you don't agree with, or vice versa. Hence, you never truly vote your preference.

3) Voting warfare -- as expressed in my thread here (https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/107), politics is primarily about voting for the group (be it racial, political etc.), rather than ideas or policies. This leads to all kinds of worthless mud-slinging and emotional appeals, because the voting people are oppressed by appearances and results. Due to outright theft disgusting the human mind, people then create narratives, of which are purely designed (whether they realise it or not) to serve the interest of the group they've already chosen, under the guise of moral high ground.

4) Detritus is preserved -- for some people, the welfare benefits they receive, which are born from the hard work of capable people, are the solitary things which keep them alive. So, the person who is wholly incapable of any contribution to society (e.g. severe mental illness, 50 I.Q. etc.) will vehemently vote for ineffective, economically draining policy purely out of self-interest, whilst the people whom know this policy is dreadful won't fight it with such fervour, because they will survive regardless. This leads to an enormous bog in welfare spending, stifling an economy.

I am aware of variations on Representative Democracy, such as Direct Democracy. Whilst they may alleviate some of the problems above, they will exaggerate other problems.

Hence, Democracy fails.

In an age of feminist delusions and an omnipresent glut of 'truth', reality about sexual attractiveness has never been cloudier. 

Google searches about the nebulous 'women's sexual peak' will spew 30-40 years of age, nebulous due to a seemingly underlying assumption that women are most attractive and sexually active around these ages (the latter perhaps true).

A "study" has found that women are most attractive at 30 years of age, start to show signs of ageing at 41, and stopped looking sexy by age 53. It is interesting to note that the article in which the study is presented has Anne Hathaway, relatively unattractive with short hair (but that's another topic for another time) (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9943900/Women-at-their-most-attractive-at-30-men-at-34-survey-says.html). 

These claims are about to be crushed.

From a Jezebel article (of all places), data derived from the dating site OkCupid (i.e. the ages of people trying to date each other), found that women, regardless of the man's age, were most attractive between ages 20-24. Whilst men ages 20-30 were willing to give women older than 35 some play (poor souls), this tolerance disappears once a man enters his 30s. This is not some "study" wherein the metrics are vague and non-specified. This isn't some feelopinion. This is raw, empirical data (https://jezebel.com/mens-favorite-ages-are-20-21-22-and-23-a-data-dive-1731660984).

Yet despite the raw, empirical data, the comments section on the Jezebel article is rife with hysterical anger (I'll leave you to guess from which gender and what ages). Some comments that made me chuckle were:

I cannot stick my penis in your 'opinionated' personality. I can, however, stick my penis in a tight, youthful vagina, and hence feel great pleasure. You might not personally like the reality of sexual attraction, but reality doesn't care for your cerebral nonsense.

Few greater exercises in futility can be found than political conversations. Right now, on the website you're using, a rapid accumulation of views does little in pacifying the innate political leanings of people. However, this does little in persuasion, as we'll see below.

To bolster this conception with evidence, a study of 2,355 twins found that when it came to voting Conservative (or not), 57% of the variability could be accounted for by genetics alone. UKIP, Labor and the Greens party votes were genetically accounted for by 50% (https://theconversation.com/do-our-genes-tell-us-how-to-vote-study-of-twins-says-they-might-40038).

This genetic expression in voting patterns is also expressed in analysis of Conservative Blacks. Despite being Conservative, Black people *overwhelmingly* voted for the Obama, the Black Democrat candidate (at a nigh 100% rate).

(http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2016/08/moderate-is-race-relative-term.html). 

Observing other American data, we can see that *all* listed races (White, Black, Asian and Hispanic) said that race was the most important factor, in regards to a personal identifier. The kicker: this thrashed American nationality and political ideology (http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2017/11/color-trumps-ideology.html).

Not only do genetics provide innate political boundaries within people (i.e. no amount of dialogue, statistics or rhetoric will convince them otherwise), but the ones who are convinced are, the majority of the time, persuaded by an innate, racial tribalism. Hence, the Tabula Rasa conception of trying to convince people with logical arguments, is unreality. 

If humanity is interested in progressing, it needs to find ways to overcome the fatalistic genetic component politics.

Cultured meat is essentially meat grown in vitro, as opposed to being collected from carcasses. Clearly, this has the advantage of avoiding the slaughtering of animals, which is arguably an ethical concern.

Until recently (2017), this version of meat has always been too expensive, being well over $300,000 just three and a half years ago (albeit, that seemed to include the cost of setting-up the lab).

However, due to developing technology, the meat was able to be produced for approximately $11.

Whilst this is still 9-10 times more expensive than slaughtered meat, this inspires an interesting question: at what price would you be willing to switch to Cultured Meat, if at all?

Chronic traumatic encephalopathy, informally known as American Football Disease, is a condition caused by repeated minor concussions, and results in the brain stretching and tearing. Psychologically, people suffering from this disease are 6 times more likely to commit suicide. Memory loss, early dementia and depression are all associated with the disease. Due to these psychologically problems, victims have an average life expectancy of under 60 years (far below the American male average of 76.9 -- (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy)) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otN0qb8Srrw).

If NFL is thoroughly damaging to humans, and alternative sports are readily available (of which are less injurious and quasi-fatal), then why should this be preferred? 

In the sense of transforming humans to escape their evolutionary instinctual limitations (which lead/leads to things like a violence, material greed, hunger, sexual desire, desire to dominate and desire for fame), would merely epigenetics allow humans to free themselves from these restrictions, or would perhaps an infusion robotics (likely physically altering the brain, thus not epigenetic and gravitating towards a "post human" label) be preferable, or perhaps none of this is possible?

If we were to free ourselves of such limitations, would our I.Qs increase (since they no longer have to account for non-cerebral instincts), or perhaps they would decrease (due to decreased complexity in the human psyche, therefore not requiring a brain capable of unravelling such complexity)?

Perhaps there would be striking physical differences to human's outward appearance.

Is it possible that the adolescent ideal of 'everyone just getting along' is a possibility, just one that requires, at the least, tweaking humans.

Telically, are epigenetics capable of instigating a radical transformation of the human essence? 

What do you think?

As men become increasingly disenfranchised with society (see MGTOW), their genuine issues are being met with little but derision by most women. Barring individuals like Cassie Jay and Girlwriteswhat, who are arguably in it for the attention/money, honest discussion about men's issues, from my experience, is met with one of four responses:

1) NAWALT (not all women are like that)

2) Be a man

3) Work hard [for women]

4) Stop whining

For example, from 2009-2014 in the UK, 97% of workplace deaths were men (http://www.inside-man.co.uk/2015/03/03/97-employees-die-work-men-2009-2014-figures/).

Where is the media hysteria about this? Where are the conversations about this? Where are the feminists campaigning for equality now? Please, find me a source where you have droves of men and women discussing this, much like they would discuss feminist issues (e.gs. rape culture, the wage gap).

What could explain this apathy?

Personally, and this is yet to be armed with statistics, I think this extends from men's place in sexual reproduction. You can birth 50 children every 9 months with 50 women and 1 man in your tribe, yet only 1 child with a tribe of 50 men and 1 woman. Unless the man brings some kind of utility to the tribe (such as physical strength, which is why woman are attracted to it), there is no reason for the tribe to keep him alive, whereas a (fertile) woman is inherently valuable. This is why these alarming statistics don't register many cares throughout the world. We're biologically programmed to care less about men than women, unless the men are useful. Women are human beings; men are human doings.

The fact that workplace death, and many other statistics (male homelessness, family court bias, inequality in teacher rape convictions, child custody disparity etc.) are largely ignored by larger media, suggests a rather uncomfortable truth: men, and their feelings, are disposable. If we are to agree that this is the case, and I think there could be debate on this claim, then we reach the conclusion that it is futile to argue MRA/MRM stances, simply because women (and society at large) don't care about men.

The website is clean and any obvious bugs are being fixed very quickly.

This is quite impressive.

Discuss.

The Gallant Lab (at UC Berkeley) has recently (2011) developed a technique of modelling "brain activity elicited by static visual patterns and have reconstructed these patterns from brain activity". In other words, by analysing brain activity, these people are capable of replicating images the brain is seeing (to some degree -- the pictures are not the sharpest).

Since 2011, they have been able to hasten the process by using "new motion-energy encoding model that largely overcomes this [slowness]". Albeit, they have not furthered the vividness of images produced.

Whilst this technology is best regarded as primitive, it is sensational that such mind reading capabilities are a reality.

What do you think such technology means for the future? Perhaps you think mind reading will become an incredibly potent force in the legal systems. Perhaps you think mind reading will enhance scam artistry.

http://gallantlab.org/index.php/publications/nishimoto-et-al-2011/

Or perhaps artificial intelligence would naturally derive ethical rights, given it reaches a threshold (say self-awareness).

This encourages us to ask for the components or values that constitute an entity to earn rights. Is being human sufficient? Should rights scale with intelligence (i.e. a dog has some rights, but the smarter human has far more)? What is it exactly that determines something has a right, and should that right be extended to artificial intelligence?

For example, in 2017, a robot named "Sophia" was granted citizenship in Saudi Arabia (https://techcrunch.com/2017/10/26/saudi-arabia-robot-citizen-sophia/). Should this have happened?