/bmw/ - The Bureau of Memetic Warfare

One problem when nobody dare say anything, is that you don't know what part they don't buy.

To continue with the blue eyes example, you don't know if it is the blue arctic winter nights they object to, that blue eyes is an adaptation to exploit this, or if they think humans are special.

It could also be so simple, that they have been brought up to worship authority like the Swedes, so that they don't accept challenges to the orthodoxy, unless a majority of the best and the brightest think the theory true?

The Swedish way works wonders when the experts are correct, not only because the correct thing is decided at the top, but also because it hinders false opinions living as a meme among the population.

The Swedish way is however a disaster if the experts are wrong, as Sweden today is a living example of, because the only correction mechanism is the scandal, when something goes so horrible wrong, that it impossible for society at large not to notice.

Another problem is the areas like with the meme that human eye color is physiological irrelevant, where it's impossible for something to go horrible wrong.

The least controversial premise, is that the arctic winter nights have more visible blue light, because the atmosphere bends blue light more than red, and that the arctic is far enough north for this effect to be profound.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_night

What's also no longer controversial, is that other animals than humans, have evolved blue eyes to see better in the blue northern nights.

https://uit.no/nyheter/artikkel?p_document_id=355402&p_dim=88205

Rudolph's eyes turn blue for Christmas

Everyone talks about Rudolph the reindeer’s red nose. But the most remarkable thing about reindeer is that their eyes change colour in the winter from gold to blue.

A reindeer’s eyes are like the eyes of a cat – they reflect light in the darkness. This characteristic explains the flash you see when the light from your car headlights strikes the eyes of an animal at night.

Researchers at UiT The Arctic University of Norway have now discovered that while reindeer eyes flash a gold-green colour in the summer, this reflected light shifts to a deep blue colour in the winter darkness.

You could say that Rudolph's eyes turn blue for Christmas. Nothing like this has been found in any other animal.

There is a distinct difference in eye colour in reindeer eyes collected in winter and summer. Winter eyes are deep blue. Photo: Department of Arctic and marine biology.

“Our study shows that the reindeer’s eyes are specially adapted to the lighting conditions that characterize high latitudes. This has never been reported before, because no one has looked at animals that experience extreme light conditions throughout the year,” says Professor Karl-Arne Stokkan.

Would be harmful for humans

Many animals have a light-reflecting surface behind the retina called the tapetum lucidum, a Latin word that translates as “bright carpet.”

The tapetum reflects light inside the eye so it has more time to stimulate light-sensitive receptors in the retina. This is the structure that changes colour in the reindeer eye with the approach of the dark days of Christmas.

Stokkan explains that the eye has a cellular pump that pumps fluid into the eye. The only way for the fluid to escape is through a good drainage system behind the eye. But, he says, when it is dark and the animal’s pupils are greatly expanded, it is as if a curtain has covered this drainage system.

“This increases the pressure in the animal’s eye. The difference between summer and winter pressures are also significant,” he says. “Pressures also increase slightly in the human eye at night. But the pressures we have measured in the reindeer eye in winter are so high that they would be harmful in the human eye.”

Blue eyes improve vision in the shadows

“The fibres in the reindeer’s tapetum are brought closer together because of this pressure, which changes the colour of the reflected light. This means that the eye’s light sensitivity is increased, because blue light is scattered more than yellow light,” said Stokkan.

Researchers use an instrument called an electroretinogram to measure the sensitivity of the eye to light. The instrument measures the electrical responses in the eye when there is a specific light stimulus.

When the blue light is reflected, light is spread laterally onto the retina and many light receptors are simultaneously stimulated. The downside is that the image is blurred and visual acuity is actually worse. But the advantage is that the animals are considerably more sensitive to movement in the shadows in winter, which means they can detect predators in the dark more easily.

“Reindeer herders are very familiar with this phenomenon. They say that if you stand still just a short distance from a herd of reindeer in the winter, they won’t see you, but as soon as you move the animals startle and run away,” Stokkan says.

Curiosity-driven

At the same time, reindeer can take advantage of their sharper vision in the bright summer months.

Karl-Arne Stokkan describes his research on reindeer eyes as “curiosity-driven research”, with no immediate practical application.

The research project is a continuation of a study that showed that reindeer see ultraviolet light. Reindeer were the first large mammal known to have UV vision.

“Our finding that a reindeer’s eye colour can change may also hold true for other animals. But we were the first to discover this, as well as the first to discover that large mammals have ultraviolet vision,” Stokkan notes. “An extensive amount of research has now been conducted in this field, and initial results suggest that only humans and some species of monkeys cannot see UV light. All other animals can see it.”

The fact that king James' bible is all the same, is proof king James' bible originated after book printing was invented, and because the Latin and Greek bibles vary, often a lot, they are most likely older than book printing.

The argument here is non-controversial, because it fits with the current dogma, but when you say that the current version of the Koran must be younger than book printing, you open up a can of worms.

Any academic can freely apply his knowledge to confirm the current dogma, and he is also free to use the current paradigm to challenge anything controversial.

What the academic is not allowed to do, is to challenge non-controversial things that everybody know is true, because that is usually a sign of incompetence or that you have some hidden agenda more important than scientific objectivity.

Why the eyes of the reindeer changes color in winter is one controversial subject, but it becomes pseudo-science to challenge the noncontroversial scientific knowledge that 1. brown and blue eyes see equally well, and 2. white people did not evolve in the arctic.

The competent academics know the explanation for most anomalies, and stuff that are yet unexplainable is no reason to throw out the whole theory, because new stuff is being discovered every day.

The competent academic is thus used to disregard anomalies as unimportant and the ones that fixate on them, as doing pseudo-science, so when academics doing or supporting pseudo-science are found out, they get no sympathy, and because referencing them is seen as support, that stops, and he becomes academically dead.

The consequence of this, is however threefold.

1. The charlatans becomes better at pretending to do real science.

2. Innocent academics are caught in the pseudo-science dragnet, and the academics becomes scared of being falsely accused, so they start policing their thoughts and words.

3. It becomes possible to use science as tool for political goals, if you control the journals, and can declare that your opponent doing pseudo-science, as the Maxists did to purge the universities of Nazis and racists.

To sum up this bit, the result is anyway that academics, even as anons, is dead scared of not being hard enough on the pseudo-scientists, or take any of the proofs or arguments they submit serious, regardless if the arguments are true or not.

If Stokkan had said this about humans, he would have been one of the pseudo-scientist, even if 100% true.

" When the blue light is reflected, light is spread laterally onto the retina and many light receptors are simultaneously stimulated. The downside is that the image is blurred and visual acuity is actually worse. But the advantage is that the animals are considerably more sensitive to movement in the shadows in winter, which means they can detect prey in the dark more easily.

What is true here is then irrelevant before we even begin on the human eye, because academics can't say what is true before others say the same thing, and make it controversial.

This actually makes academics at best useless, and at worse harmful, when it comes to correcting mistakes in science, as the only ones that can take the risk, is the amateur that have a secure income elsewhere.

The orthodoxy is correct that the color of the iris is irrelevant to vision, and the genetics behind it, and why the eyes are blue is common knowledge.

People with back/dark brown eyes have a lot of black melanin in the Iris, people with brown/green eyes a mix of black and brown melanin, while the blue eyed have the brown type. In addition to this, eye color is dependent on the density of melanin.

What is not common knowledge, because the information is usually not needed, is that the Iris is a part of the Choroid, a layer that contains melanin, and goes behind the retina.

From Kikepedia

>Melanin, a darkly colored pigment, helps the choroid limit uncontrolled reflection within the eye that would potentially result in the perception of confusing images.

>In humans and most other primates, melanin occurs throughout the choroid. In albino humans, frequently melanin is absent and vision is low.

>In many animals, however, the partial absence of melanin contributes to superior night vision. In these animals, melanin is absent from a section of the choroid and within that section a layer of highly reflective tissue, the tapetum lucidum, helps to collect light by reflecting it in a controlled manner.

>The uncontrolled reflection of light from dark choroid produces the photographic red-eye effect on photos, whereas the controlled reflection of light from the tapetum lucidum produces eyeshine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choroid

If the melanin in the Choroid is mostly of the black type you get dark brown eyes, and little uncontrolled reflection in strong light. The blue eyed have brown melanin, and less of it, so they will have some reflection.

It's not uncontrolled reflection, because the Albinos lack all melanin and have poor eyesight, because reflections blurs the image on the retina.

To finish up, you have two different adaptations to seeing better in the dark.

1. The tapetum lucidum a reflective layer immediately behind the retina, where it reflects visible light back through the retina, increasing the light available to the photoreceptors, though blurring the initial image of the light on focus. Pic 1.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tapetum_lucidum

2. Having less black melanin in the choroid, giving you a more sensitive eye to movement in the shadows, at the cost of blurring. That this makes the Iris as the visible part of the choroid look blue in the extreme, is thus of little importance.

The first adaptation is found all over the world, among many species, but not humans, while the second is also found among many species including humans it's only found in the polar regions, where it gives better detection to movement the blue winter nights.

The first adaptation give the eyeglow effect, while the second gives us the red-eye.

The BIG problem that makes this theory so toxic, is that everybody knows blue eyes are functionally the same as brown eyes, and that blue eyes could not have developed in the Arctic, because it was all covered with Ice.

If I were to show that the the whole of N-Europe wasn't covered with ice last Ice age, it wouldn't matter, because the academics would still call it pseudoscience.

Only a racist white supremacist is interest in why blue eyes are better than brown, and because the racists peddles wishful thinking as science, all they do is pseudoscience.

A good cuckademics interested in having a career understand that they need to keep their distance from the pseudoscientists, so not to give them credibility. You thus get the silent treatment if you are correct, rather than anybody meeting your arguments or calling you a cook.

>>4986

>This actually makes academics at best useless, and at worse harmful, when it comes to correcting mistakes in science, as the only ones that can take the risk, is the amateur that have a secure income elsewhere.

Oh fuck do I know. the /pol/aks and their muh degeneracy stuff about weed is a good example.

>>5018

>Oh fuck do I know. the /pol/aks and their muh degeneracy stuff about weed is a good example.

I don't understand your point, unless it was that the weed smokers that think weed is good for you, are fanatics?

If it simply was that "statistical significant" is mainly useless in order to establish cause and effect, I agree.

Some years ago I found some articles with research on eye colour showing that the amount of melanin in infants (i.e. more melanin = darker eyes) predicts the amount of myelinated neurons in both the central and perephrial nervous system. Tried to find these articles today but couldn't find them at all, not any of them.

If you have less myelinated neurons in your nervous system you will think and react slower to inner and outer stimuli. Comparing a high myelinated human with a low myelinated human would contrast to one that reacts fast to one that reacts slow. A human with low myelination needs more/stronger stimuli before getting a response compared to a human with a high myelination.

This could then be extrapolated further to: Someone with blue eyes is more prone to be lured "step by step" to heavy addictive behaviour.

Since I can't refer to the articles you can try this on your own by examining peoples eye colours and try to get a cognitive grip of how "fast" they are thinking/reacting, you'll see a correlation (although with some variation).

In Sweden we have the expression to be "blue-eyed" = "to be naive, easily fooled".

>>5035

>myelinated neurons

Do you mean it also codes for different neuromelanin?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuromelanin

>In Sweden we have the expression to be "blue-eyed" = "to be naive, easily fooled".

I think there is some truth in that, but it might boil down to less selfish?

What is interesting, is that most mammals have share the same biology on the kinds of melanin, so it should be true to some degree in blue eyed animals?

Even more interesting is that white people lack camouflage, but are evolved to be seen, and that usually mean in nature you will stand and fight, rather than run, also a blue eyed trait?

The mechanisms could be that the genes that make you more visible, only survive with a stand and fight attitude, so evolution have made them be expressed together?

Flowers are meant to be seen as well, and we think they are pretty, so it would also explain why white people are seen more beautiful than the less visible races?

>>5038

>Yes. White people like to raped and plundered of their nectar by the smaller, faster, flying creatures. Your analogy is absolutely correct

I was thinking more about this:

Countershading vs Aposematism

>When light falls on a uniformly coloured object such as a sphere from above, it makes the upper side appear lighter and the underside darker, grading from one to the other. This pattern of light and shade makes the object appear solid, and therefore acts as a visual cue which makes the object easier to detect.

>Countershading reduces the ease of detection of predators and prey by counterbalancing the effects of self-shadowing, again typically with grading from dark to light.

>The reverse of countershading, with the belly pigmented darker than the back, enhances contrast and so makes animals more conspicuous. It is found in animals that can defend themselves, such as skunks. The pattern is used both in startle or deimatic displays and as a signal to warn off experienced predators.

…

>Both Thayer and Cott include in their books photographs of a non-countershaded white cockerel against a white background, to make the point that in Thayer's words "a monochrome object can not be 'obliterated', no matter what its background"[14] or in Cott's words "Colour resemblance alone is not sufficient to afford concealment".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countershading

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_coloration

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aposematism