A longstanding orthodoxy among social scientists holds that human races are a social construct performance have no biological basis. A related assumption is that human evolution halted in the distant past, so long ago that evolutionary explanations need never be considered by historians or economists. New analyses of the human genome have established that human evolution has been recent, copious, and regional. In the decade since the decoding of the human genome, a growing wealth of data has made clear that these two positions, never at all likely to begin with, are simply incorrect. There is indeed a biological basis for race. And it is now beyond doubt that human evolution is a continuous process that has proceeded vigorously within the last 30,000 years and almost certainly though very recent evolution is hard to measure throughout the historical period and up until the present day Behavior analyses of the human genome have established that performance evolution has been recent, copious, performance regional. Trading scanning the genome for behavior of natural selection have detected signals of many genes that have been favored by natural selection in the recent evolutionary past. Analysis of genomes from around the world establishes that there is a biological basis for race, despite the official statements to the contrary of leading social science organizations. Racism and discrimination are wrong as a matter of behavior, not of science. That said, it is hard to see anything in the new understanding of race that gives ammunition to racists. The reverse is the case. Exploration of the genome has shown that all humans, whatever their race, share the same set of genes. Each gene exists in a variety of alternative forms known as alleles, so one might suppose that races have distinguishing alleles, but even this is not the case. A few alleles have highly skewed distributions but these do not suffice trading explain the difference between races. The difference between races seems to rest on the subtle matter of relative allele frequencies. The overwhelming verdict of the genome is to declare the basic unity of humankind. Human evolution has not only been recent and extensive, it has also been regional. The period of 30,000 to 5,000 years ago, from which signals of recent natural selection can be detected, occurred after the splitting of the three major races, so represents selection that has occurred largely independently within each race. The three principal races are Africans those who live south of the SaharaEast Asians Chinese, Japanese, and Koreansand Caucasians Europeans and the peoples of the Near East and the Indian subcontinent. In each of these races, a different set of genes has been changed by natural selection. This is just what would be expected for populations that had to adapt to different challenges on each continent. The genes specially affected by natural selection control not only expected traits like skin color and nutritional metabolism, but also some aspects of brain function. Though the role of these selected brain genes is not yet understood, the obvious truth is that genes affecting the brain are just as much subject to natural selection as any other category of gene. Human social structures change so slowly and trading such difficulty as to suggest an evolutionary influence at work. What might be the role of these brain genes favored by natural selection? Wilson was pilloried for saying in his book Sociobiology that humans have many social instincts. But subsequent research has confirmed the idea that we are inherently sociable. From our earliest years we want to belong to a group, conform to its rules and punish those who violate them. Anything that has a genetic basis, such as these social instincts, can be varied by natural selection. The power of modifying social instincts is most visible in the case of ants, behavior organisms that, along with humans, occupy the two pinnacles of social behavior. Sociality is rare in nature because to make a society work individuals must moderate their powerful selfish instincts and become at least partly altruistic. But once a social species has come into being, it can rapidly exploit and occupy new niches just by making minor adjustments in social behavior. Thus both ants and humans have conquered the world, though fortunately performance different scales. Conventionally, these social differences are attributed solely to culture. The explanation could be that tribal behavior has a genetic basis. Modern humans lived for 185,000 years as hunters and gatherers before settling down in fixed communities. The fact that it took so long suggests that a genetic change in human social behavior was required and took many generations to evolve. Tribalism seems to be the default mode of human political organization. But tribalism is hard to abandon, again suggesting that an evolutionary change may be required. Caucasians were the first to establish settled communities, some 15,000 years ago, followed by East Asians and Africans. China, which developed the first modern behavior, shed tribalism two millennia ago, Europe did so only a thousand years ago, and populations in the Middle East and Africa are in the throes of the process. Until then, almost everyone but the nobility lived a notch or two above starvation. This subsistence-level existence was a characteristic of agrarian economies, behavior from the time that agriculture was first invented. Perhaps productivity increased because the nature of the people had changed. The reason for the economic stagnation was not lack of inventiveness: England of possessed sailing ships, firearms, printing presses, and whole suites of technologies undreamed of by hunter gatherers. But these technologies did not translate into better living standards for the average person. Performance reason was a Catch-22 of agrarian economies, called trading Malthusian trap, after the Rev. In his Essay performance the Principle of Population, Malthus observed that each time productivity improved and food became more plentiful, more infants survived to maturity, and the extra mouths ate up the surplus. Within a generation, everyone was back to living just and starvation level. Malthus, strangely enough, wrote his essay at the very moment when England, and followed by other European countries, was about to escape from the Malthusian trap. The escape consisted of such a substantial increase in production efficiency that extra workers enhanced incomes instead of constraining them. This development, known as the Industrial Revolution, is the salient trading in economic history, yet economic historians say they have reached no agreement on how to account for it. Some experts argue that demography was the real driver: Europeans escaped the Malthusian trap by restraining fertility through methods such as late marriage. Others cite institutional changes, such as the beginnings of modern English democracy, secure property rights, the development of competitive markets, or patents that stimulated invention. Yet others point to the growth of and starting from the Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th century or the easy availability of capital. This plethora of explanations and the fact that none of them is satisfying to all experts point strongly to the need for an entirely new category of explanation. The economic historian Gregory Clark has provided one by daring to look at a plausible yet unexamined possibility: that productivity increased because the nature of the people had changed. They have discussed human quality, but by this they usually mean just education and training. Others have suggested that culture might explain why some economies performance very differently from others, but without specifying what aspects of culture they have in mind. None has dared say that culture might include an evolutionary change in behavior but neither do they explicitly exclude this possibility. It was from Malthus that Darwin derived the principle of natural selection, the central mechanism in his theory of evolution. If people were struggling on the edge of starvation, competing to survive, then the slightest advantage would be decisive, Darwin realized, and the owner would bequeath that advantage to his children. These children and their offspring would thrive while others perished. The performance of this would be the formation of a new species. Here then I had at last got a theory and which to work. The question is that of just what traits were being selected for. Clark has documented four behaviors that steadily changed in the English population between andas well as a highly plausible mechanism of change. The four behaviors are those of interpersonal violence, literacy, the propensity to save, and the propensity to work. Profound events are likely to have profound causes. Homicide rates for males, for instance, declined from per thousand in to in and to about a tenth of this in Even from the beginning of this period, the level of personal violence was well below that of modern hunter-gatherer societies. Work hours steadily increased throughout the period, and interest rates fell. When inflation and risk are subtracted, an interest rate reflects the compensation that a person will demand to postpone immediate gratification by postponing consumption of a good from now until a future date. Economists call this attitude time preference, and psychologists call it delayed gratification. Children, who are generally not so good at delaying gratification, are said to have a high time preference. In his celebrated marshmallow test, the psychologist Walter Mischel tested young children as to their preference for receiving one marshmallow now or two in fifteen minutes. This simple decision turned out to have far-reaching consequences: Those able to hold out for the larger reward had higher SAT scores and social competence in later life. Children have a very high time preference, which falls as they grow older and develop more self-control. Time preferences are also high among hunter-gatherers. These behavioral changes in the English population between and were of pivotal economic importance. They gradually transformed a violent and undisciplined peasant population into an efficient and productive workforce. Turning up punctually for work every day and enduring eight eight hours or more trading repetitive labor is far from being a natural human behavior. Hunter-gatherers do not willingly embrace such occupations, but agrarian societies from their beginning demanded the discipline to labor in the fields trading to plant and harvest and the correct times. Disciplined behaviors were probably evolving gradually within the agrarian English population for many centuries beforethe point at which they can be documented. Clark has uncovered a genetic mechanism through which the Malthusian economy may have wrought these changes on the English population: The rich had more surviving children than did the poor. The English population was fairly stable in size from tomeaning that if the rich were having more children than the poor, most children of the rich had to sink in the social scale, given that there were too many of them to remain in the upper class. Their social descent had the far-reaching genetic consequence that they carried with them inheritance for the same behaviors that had made their parents rich. The values of the upper middle class nonviolence, literacy, thrift, and patience were thus infused into lower economic classes and throughout society. Generation after generation, they gradually became the values of the society as a whole. This explains the steady decrease in violence and increase in literacy that Clark has documented for the English population. Moreover, the behaviors emerged gradually over several centuries, a time course more typical of an evolutionary change than a cultural change. In a broader sense, these changes in behavior were just some of many that occurred as the English population adapted to a market economy. Markets required prices and symbols and rewarded literacy, numeracy, and those who could think in symbolic ways. Middle-class culture spread throughout the society through biological mechanisms. But profound events are likely to have profound causes. The Industrial Revolution was caused not by events of the previous century but by changes in human economic behavior that had been slowly evolving in agrarian societies behavior the previous 10,000 years. This of course explains why the practices of the Industrial Revolution were adopted so easily by other European countries, the United States, and East Asia, all of whose populations had been living in agrarian economies and evolving for thousands of years under the same and constraints of the Malthusian regime. No single resource or institutional change the usual suspects in most theories of the Industrial Revolution is likely to have become effective in all these countries aroundtrading indeed none did. That leaves the questions of why the Industrial Revolution was perceived as sudden and why it emerged first in England instead of in any of the many other countries where conditions were ripe. English workmen contributed to this spurt, Clark dryly notes, as much by their labors in the bedroom as on the factory floor. The burden of proof is surely shifted to those who might wish to assert that the English population was miraculously exempt from the very forces of natural selection whose existence it had suggested to Darwin. A second instance of very recent human evolution may well be in evidence in European Jews, behavior the Ashkenazim of northern and central Europe. In proportion to their population, Jews have made outsize contributions to Western civilization. A simple metric is that of Nobel prizes: Though Jews constitute only 0. There is something here that requires explanation. If Jewish success were purely cultural, such as hectoring mothers or a zeal for education, others should have been able to do as well by and such cultural practices. Jews at that time earned their living mostly by farming, as did everyone else, and education was both expensive and of little practical use. Many Jews abandoned Judaism for the new and less rigorous Jewish sect now known as Christianity. Performance and Eckstein say nothing about genetics but evidently, if generation after generation the Jews less able to acquire literacy became Christians, literacy and related abilities would on average be enhanced among those who remained Jews. In a world where most people were illiterate, Jews could read contracts, keep accounts, appraise collateral, and do business arithmetic. They formed a natural trading network through their co-religionists in other cities, and they and rabbinical courts to settle disputes. Jews moved into money-lending not because they were forced to do so, as some accounts suggest, but because they chose the profession, Botticini and Eckstein say. It was risky but highly profitable. The more able Jews thrived and, just as in the rest of behavior pre-19th century world, the richer were able to support more surviving children. As Jews adapted to a cognitively demanding niche, their abilities increased to the point that the average IQ of Ashkenazi Jews is, at to 115, the highest of any known ethnic group. The population geneticists Henry Harpending and Gregory Cochran have calculated that, assuming a high heritability of intelligence, Ashkenazi IQ could have risen by 15 points in just years. Ashkenazi Jews first appear in Europe around AD, and Jewish cognitive skills may performance been increasing well before then. The emergence of high cognitive ability among the Ashkenazim, if genetically based, is of interest both in itself and as an instance of natural selection shaping a population within the very recent past. The hand of evolution seems visible in the major transitions in human social structure and in the two case studies described above. This is of course a hypothesis; proof awaits detection of the genes in question. If significant evolutionary changes can occur so recently in history, other major historical events may have evolutionary components. One trading is the trading of the West, which was prompted by a remarkable expansion of European societies, both in knowledge and geographical sway, while the two other major powers of the medieval world, China behavior the house of Islam, ascendant until around AD, were rapidly overtaken. Civilizations may rise and fall but evolution never ceases. In his book The Wealth and Poverty of Nationsthe economic historian David Landes examines every possible factor for explaining the rise of the West and the stagnation of China and concludes, in essence, that the answer lies in the nature of the people. Landes attributes the decisive factor to culture, but describes culture in such a way as to imply race. Yet culture, in the sense of the inner values and attitudes that guide a population, frightens scholars. It has a sulfuric odor of race and inheritance, an air of immutability. The data gathered by Clark on declining rates of violence and increasing rates of literacy from to provide some evidence for a genetic component to culture and social institutions. Do Chinese carry genes for conformism and authoritarian rule? May Europeans have alleles that favor open societies and the rule of law? Obviously this is unlikely to be the case. If Europeans were slightly less inclined to punish violators and Chinese slightly more so, that could explain why European societies are more tolerant of dissenters and innovators, and Chinese societies less so. Because the genes that govern rule following and punishment of violators have not yet been identified, it is not yet known if these do in fact vary in European and Chinese populations in the way suggested. Nature has performance dials to twist in setting the intensities of the various human social behaviors and many different ways of arriving at the same solution. The rise of the West, too, is unlikely to have been just some cultural accident. As European populations became adapted to the geographic and military conditions of their particular ecological habitat, they produced societies that have turned out to be more innovative and productive than others, at least under present circumstances. That does not of course mean that Europeans are superior to others a meaningless term in any case from the evolutionary perspective any more than Chinese were superior to others during their heyday. Civilizations may rise and fall but evolution never ceases, which is why genetics may play some role alongside the mighty force of culture in shaping the nature of human societies. History and evolution are not separate processes, with human evolution grinding to a halt some decent interval before history begins. And more that we are able to peer into the behavior genome, the more it seems that the two processes are delicately intertwined. Nicholas Wade is a former science editor at The New York Times This piece is adapted from the new book, A Troublesome Inheritancepublished by the Penguin Press. Your browser is out of date. All rights reserved Opinion U. Great journalism has great value, and it costs money to make it. And it is now beyond doubt that human evolution is a continuous process that has proceeded vigorously within the last 30,000 years and almost certainly though very recent evolution is hard to measure throughout the historical period and up until the present day. We wrote our song to be the voice in your head that tells you to celebrate peace during wartime, because our battle is only just beginning, and one day our war really will be over. She was Some time later, upon hearing that a surgery had not gone as well as hoped, I sat down with my guitar and wrote her a song. A few other good friends of hers strung together some photographs to make a music video and we sent it to her to watch from her hospital bed. When those same friends gathered together less than two years later to sing the song at her funeral, the dissonance was jarring. This was meant to be a work song, to see her through the hard days when the task of healing was tiring. It was not supposed to be a funeral hymn. Trading was days after the Supreme Court ruled that state-level bans on same-sex marriages were in violation of the Constitution of the United States, and it felt like the whole country was celebrating. Then, on June 12th,a gunman walked into Latin Night at Pulse Nightclub in Orlando, Florida a queer space, a brown space, a safe space and shot 49 people to death. We cannot build a better world without first imagining what that world might look like, and by creating that space inside ourselves first. We, as a band, understand this. At the same time, we believe it is a mistake to say that a man whose best assets are and and fear truly represents America. We say this because America has always been an idea, a utopian concept of a multiethnic, multicultural democratic republic, and therefore its home lies in the imagination, not in the House or the Senate or in a Trump Tower. Let us continue to build spaces with our humble means that reflect the America of which we dream. Let us keep up the fight.
Volatility Patterns for Day Traders and Scalpers by Chris Lori
Volatility Patterns for Day Traders and Scalpers by Chris Lori
2 thoughts on “Iq trading behavior and performance”
More So Cal 55 team AAA looking for players July 31, 2010 - We are looking for outfielders to finish this season and into 2011.
Perhaps his finest literary achievement during the war came in the course of writing a.