Over 30 years later, she’s still haunted by the ghost of Rushton

Image found here

In the late 1980s Notisha Massaquoi (who was pretty cute I must say) was the only black student in Rushton’s psychology class at the prestigious University of Western Ontario. In an interview with the fabulous CBC, she states:

When I signed up for the course it was like any other course that I was taking at the school at the time. And what started happening very slowly throughout the course would be small bits of racist ideology being spewed to us. And I equate it to being groomed for the big reveal of his theory, to be honest. So little things like positive stereotypes such as Asian people are extremely bright. But then it started escalating in subsequent classes to things like Black children develop much faster than white babies because they have to be able to become more independent because their families can’t parent appropriately or take care of them. The big day came when Rushton started to reveal what we then come to find out is his theory of racial inferiority and which he proclaimed that we were ranked intellectually with Asian people being more intelligent than whites and Blacks being more or less intelligent than white people.

A student asked at that time, ‘Is this always the case? Can we always guarantee that this will be the case?’ And he then turned to the class and said there is some variation except if you are Black. If you are Black, you are genetically inferior and intellectually inferior to all other races.

WTF? Was Rushton trolling his own students? I know for a fact Rushton believed these putative differences were only on average and that there was genius in every race, so why would he say such a thing?

Maybe he meant that all the black ethnic groups averaged low, while among white and East Asian ethnic groups, there was overlap (e.g. Jews, despite being Caucasoid, are smarter than virtually all Mongoloid ethnic groups), or maybe he was intentionally trying to brainwash his students into feeling superior to even the brightest blacks, or maybe she’s just misremembering what he actually said.

Unless other witnesses from that time period come forward, we may never know.

Rushton’s dismissive attitude towards some of his fans

Interesting video below of Rushton taking questions from his fans. What strikes me is how eloquent and upper class he was, especially when answering the question about Indian Americans:

The Indians that we notice over here are almost higher scorers than white people. They earn more money. They dominate in physics departments, engineering departments of universities, over-represented in information technology, they do extremely well; entrepreneurial and so on.

Rushton’s ability to just rattle off four examples of Indians intelligence (income, academic acumen, technological talent, and business success) while throwing in fancy adjectives like “entrepreneurial”, all with flawless elocution, shows verbal skills on a level that Nobel Prize winning physicist Richard Feynman never came close to achieving.

I noticed too in the conversations I’d have with him, while he would sometimes misunderstand my questions, his answers were always extremely articulate and commonsensical. For example when asked about Oprah’s super sized brain, he replied:

There are always going to be those who are way off in the top 1%, and indeed one would have to be to succeed in a field as competitive as television talk shows

When asked about regression predicting IQ from income:

Billionaires are going to be more intelligent than millionaires who are going to be more intelligent than the middle class, who are going to be more intelligent than welfare recipients. That’s the way the model works.

He was also the best writer of all the prominent HBDers, writing:

Archaic forms of the three main races seem to differ in antiquity.

What a beautiful sentence. Rushton understood the rhythm of language.

Rushton was in a tough position, being a very non-autistic man with a hugely autistic following, and you could see the frustration in the dismissive way he answered some of the questioners in the below video. When one man went on a monologue about accepting high IQ people of all races, Rushton rudely dismissed him with “Okay thanks for the thought”.

It’s almost as if Rushton was angry that non-racist open borders people were among his fans.

He dismisses another questioner with the dumb cliché “It’s hard to make predictions, especially about the future”

GENETICALLY SUPERIOR: Great scene from the Karate Kid

So on Saturday night they were playing The Karate Kid trilogy on AMC so I order a dozen egg rolls and started watching. Can’t believe Ralph Macchio was 23 in the original. I genuinely thought he was 12 until I googled and usually I’m pretty good at guessing age.

My favorite scene is when the genetic superior confronts a Caucasoid bully and reminds him of his second-rate place in the evolutionary hierarchy. I love how when the Caucasoid puts up his dukes, the genetic superior just stands there staring at him like Michael Myers would do.

Mare of Easttown on HBO

I’m so excited about this new HBO show that I’m literally counting down the hours until debuts. The trailer is really well done and dark.

Don’t know what it is about this show that makes me want to watch so badly. I love watching shows about white people in small towns where everyone knows everyone and all went to high school together.

I love exploring characters who peaked in high school and how they cope with that decades later.

I love the fact that even though the main character is in her 40s, she can still get picked up by a guy in a bar because he realizes he’s no spring chicken himself. I love the fact that even though they’re both in their 40s, they both look kind of good and make a great couple.

I love the fact that the main character can’t stand her mother because judging from the town, her mom’s probably a right-wing wacko who I wouldn’t be able to stand either.

I love the scene where the main character’s little kid is so proud his mom’s a legend in the town “Dey think you a heroooooo!”

And of course, there’s even the obligatory “noble negro” stereotype that offers her salvation at the end of the trailer.

I also love the haunting music.

GENETICALLY SUPERIOR: East Asians TOWER with the highest polygenic scores

A recent paper by Davide Piffer shows that East Asians tower on whatever common genetic variants predict education in Western populations.

You might say this is meaningless since the correlation between DNA and education in one particular culture is not nessecarily causal, let alone reflective of intelligence, but it’s striking how well a polygenic score built to predict education among whites does at predicting where whites rank compared to all the non-white groups in mean IQ.

For example when representative samples of the major races are reared in the same environment, you tend to get the following IQ ranking: East Asians > Whites > South Asians > Amerindians > Blacks, which is exactly the same pattern observed in the education polygenic scores.

Some people find it hard to believe East Asians could be smarter than whites because whites have invented so much of the modern world, but it’s well known that creative achievements require more than just ability; they also require certain primitive personality traits. Whites were evolved enough to have high IQ, yet still primitive enough to have the mental illness, non-conformity, and narcissism upon which creative output depends. It was this perfect balance between derived and basal traits that allowed whites to dominate.

But even this point should not be overstated. Throughout most of World history, non-whites have been on top.

NOTE: Kevin Bird has a paper countering some of Piffer’s claims so until this debate is resolved, strong conclusions are not justified.

Estimating a reader’s IQ Part 4: Current psychometric functioning

At this point in the series I wanted to know how the reader would score on tests that he did not select for himself but that I chose for him. I figured a good measure of overall IQ would consist of at least 3 major cognitive domains, so the domains I selected were Verbal, Visual, and Numerical. To assess these three domains, the tests I chose were Vocabulary from the ancient WBI, Mug of Pee’s Gestalt, and the PATMA. These tests were chosen because they’re all quick, highly g loaded and normed by me personally.

Vocabulary from the ancient WBI: Verbal IQ 138 (mild genius)

Long before the WAIS or WISC, there was the WechslerBellevue Intelligence Scale. Originally Vocabulary was considered too culturally biased to be one of the core subtests, but was used as an alternate subtest. Wechsler randomly selected words from the dictionary that were then tried out on groups of people of known intelligence. Those words that best discriminated between the bright and dull were included in the final selection of 42 words that were used in the 1937 standardization.

When the reader was given rare access to this ancient list, he got full credit (1 point) for 34 of the 42 words and partial credit (0.5 points) for 2 of them, giving him a raw score of 35 out of 42. This equated to +1.66 SD among Wechsler’s 1937 sample of young adult White New Yorkers (selected to be representative of white Americans as a whole), however by the 21st century, many of the words on the list have become impossibly difficult, so using modern white norms, the reader’s score is +2.4 SD. But since the white population of the U.S./Canada has a slightly different IQ distribution from that of the overall U.S. population, it equates to +2.5 SD or IQ 138 (U.S. norms). This is remarkably consistent with a historiometric estimate of the reader’s vocabulary based on his kindergarten teacher’s subjective impression.

Mug of Pee’s Gestalt: Visual IQ 95 (average range)

Mug of Pee’s Gestalt was normed on a random sample of 15 white Ontarians. When the reader was asked to take this test his self-reported score was -0.66 SD below the norming sample’s mean. Unfortunately, education level for this sample was not obtained so it’s unclear if the Ontarians were representative of Canadians as a whole or Ontarians specifically. This is important because on achievement tests, Ontarians outperform the rest of Canada (at least in childhood), but it’s not clear if this difference would map to fluid IQ measures like Gestalt.

Assuming that on a scale where Americans have a mean of 100 and an SD of 15, the Ontarians, like Canadians on the whole score 103.9 (SD = 13.9) on perceptual reasoning tasks, the reader’s score would equate to an IQ of 95. This is perhaps not surprising because the reader’s psychometric history showed his lowest score on Paul Cooijmans’s spatial test and there’s no historiometric evidence of spatial precociousness.

The reader also self-reported a high score on Cooijmans’s aspergoid test. Although my amateur clinical impression just from reading a few of his emails is that the reader is not autistic, his relatively low Gestalt might suggest otherwise because one theory is autistics lack big picture thinking. More testing is needed to confirm or debunk this hypothesis.

The PATMA: Numerical IQ 131 (mild genius)

The PATMA is a quick test of lateral mathematical reasoning that appears to be exceptionally g loaded. The reader self-reports a score of 8 out of 10. Based on 11 (mostly self-reported) score pairs from people who have taken both the PATMA and (abbreviated) WAIS-III/WAIS-IV (roughly corrected for old norms) a score of 8 is now equating to an IQ of 131.

Overall global intellectual ability: Full-scale IQ 131 (mild genius)

It’s hard to calculate a composite score without knowing the intercorrelation of the above three tests, but a rough approach is as follows: The average score of the reader on these three tests is +1.42 SD (U.S. norms). If you average +1.42 SD on the 10 core WAIS-IV subtests, your full-scale IQ is 131. If we assume the above 3 tests are statistically equivalent to a random sample of WAIS-IV subtests, an overall IQ of 131 is implied.

Estimating a reader’s IQ Part 3: Psychometric history

In this series I’ve been estimating a reader’s IQ using different methods, and now in part 3 we examine his psychometric history. Psychometric history is especially important in forensic cases where criminals may have faked their current low scores to avoid culpability, so they need to be corroborated by past scores.

The reader wrote:

My ‘reading level’ was assessed at 4th grade when I was in the 3rd grade, and 5th grade when I was in the 4th grade.

Unfortunately claims like this are ambiguous because “reading level” is not defined. Does reading at a 8th grade level mean reading like the average 8th grader? I don’t think so because even half of U.S. adults can’t read at an 8th grade level, so maybe these grade levels are relics from an era when only elites made it to high school.

The reader the provides a less ambiguous statement:

At 13 I was given a reading comprehension test and told that I was on the same level as the average college freshman.

Americans with “some college (13 -15 years of education)” have an average IQ of 102 (U.S. norms). Americans who graduate college (16+ years of education) have an average IQ of 111. College freshman eventually enter either of these categories so let’s split the difference and assume they have an average IQ of 107 (68 percentile).

Of course reading comprehension and IQ are not identical, but they are so highly correlated that we’d expect college freshman to be around the same percentile on both (for young adults).

If average college freshman reading skill is at the 68th percentile for young adults, what percentile is it at for 13-year-olds? I don’t have data on reading comprehension per se, but using vocabulary as a proxy, the WAIS-R and WISC-R manuals show that a vocabulary score that would put you between the 63rd to 75th percentile among 18 to 19-year-olds, would put you at the 95th to 98th percentile among 13-year-olds. So we might guess that the reader had a reading IQ of 128.

The reader also wrote:

The mean of my scores on Paul Cooijmans’ tests is 131. The median is, I believe, identical. My highest score is 148 and my lowest is 118 (excluding one spatial test on which my raw score was 0).

A raw score of 0 on Cooijman’s spatial test probably equates to an IQ of 103 or less.

The reader states:

My US Mensa ‘pretest’ score was 120. This was the first I.Q. test that I took as an adult. My [redacted by pp, 2021-04-14] score was 130 (137 verbal, 118 performance). I won’t mention any other online tests because they probably aren’t even remotely credible.

I redacted the name of one of the test’s he took because in my opinion, that test gives people too much exposure to the type of content on professional tests, and thus could compromise them.

So it looks like on credible tests, his scores range from 103 or less, all the way up to 148. Assuming his highest and lowest score were on tests that correlate about 0.7 (typical correlation between different IQ tests), 128 is what his real IQ is likely to be. Perhaps lower, since his lowest score suffered from floor bumping, but not much lower since his lowest score was an outlier.

Estimating a reader’s IQ Part 2: Historiometrics

In my last article I used the demographic approach to estimate a reader’s IQ. This is used when you lack psychometric data, but you know other details statistically related to test scores. This method is most often used when dementia is suspected but the patient has no psychometric history, thus the only way to check if cognition has declined is to estimate the expected level of past IQ. Such estimates are made from demographic variables like education, occupation and race, but I like to add physical variables like head size, height, body mass index etc, hence I renamed it bio-demographics.

In part 2 we take a historiometric approach. Like the biodemographic approach it’s also used when we don’t have test scores per se, but we do have a cognitive history amenable to quantitative analysis. For example if I know you learned to read at age 5, while the average kid can’t learn until 6, I might estimate your IQ is 120, since you were cognitively functioning at 120% your age level.

Another example might be when Homo Erectus was said to have the mind of a modern European 7-year-old because the tools they made could not be learned by children younger. This might also be called cognitive archeology, a term James Flynn used.

The reader wrote:

I was precocious only with respect to verbal ability. My kindergarten teacher evidently told my mother that I had the most extensive vocabulary of any child she had taught in a 20 year period. Her typical class probably consisted of 20 students, so I take this to mean that I had the most advanced vocabulary out of ~400. Half of the students at this school were white, and the other half black.

Of course being at the one in 400+ level at this particular school is not necessarily equivalent to being at the one in 400+ level for Americans as a whole, especially since the racial distribution of this school is not typical.

Since half the school is white, we can guess he was at the one on 200+ level among the white students, however because of systemic racism, upper class whites send their kids to white schools, leaving the children of the lower class to attend largely black schools.

On page 63 of Charles Murray’s Coming Apart he notes that whites with only a high school diploma average IQ 99 (U.S. norms) and those with even less average IQ 87. Splitting the difference, IQ 93 was perhaps the mean of white parents of students at this school.

But given the 0.5 IQ correlation between parents and their children, we’d expect the children of these white parents to progress 50% to the national white mean (IQ 103), thus the white students likely averaged IQ 98.

Assuming a standard deviation of about 15 we’d expect the one in 200+ level (+2.5 SD) to be IQ 136+.

So our historiometric estimate of the reader’s IQ (136+) is somewhat higher than the bio-demographic one (127).

Estimating a reader’s IQ Part 1: Bio-demographics

Back in February, a reader asked me to estimate his IQ. He wrote:

Dear PP,

I’m a long-time reader of your blog. I particularly enjoy your estimates of the I.Q.s of historical and contemporary personalities.

Would you perhaps be interested in estimating my I.Q.?…

…I am underweight, but my head is decidedly small. I am currently unemployed and have never had a job that could be called ‘good’ by any reasonable standard…

…Best wishes,

A small-skulled, unemployed…

When I asked him to elaborate, he had a lot more to say but in part 1 we focus only on the bio-demographic data. He writes:

My height is 5’9″, and my weight is 121.6 lbs.

I have no formal education to speak of beyond high school. I believe that I graduated around the middle of my class.

I am 30 years old, white …

…I’ve long suspected that I have Asperger’s (and scored 1.9 SD above the mean on Paul Cooijmans’ ‘Aspergoid’ scale), but I have not sought a formal diagnosis…

… My current favorite writers are Schopenhauer and Cioran (I don’t know whether this is relevant or helpful)…

…Politically, my sympathies are broadly anti-democratic. Wilhelmine Germany is close to my ideal society…

…Strictly speaking, I am an atheist, but I find much of value in Theravada Buddhism. I believe that I will survive the death of this body…

…My head circumference is 21.75 inches…

I begin with the fact that he’s a long-time reader of my blog. Anonymous polls suggest my readers average genius level IQ of about 129 (U.S. norms). Not because of the quality of my writing, but because the topic of IQ interests a lot of super high IQ people.

The next question that needs to be answered is whether this reader is brighter or duller than my average reader. The fact that he is unemployed doesn’t tell me much because he’s still young, may have psychological issues, and we’re in the middle of a pandemic. But with only a high school education, he’s certainly much less educated than my average reader and education is perhaps the single strongest demographic proxy for IQ (though not as strong as it was in the 1950s).

On the other hand his favorite writers are Schopenhauer and Cioran, implying more intellectual interests than most of my readers.

But with a head circumference of only 21.75″, his brain is way smaller than my average readers’.

But part of the reason it’s small is because he is so light and low weight/height ratio is a sign of genius.

Head size adjusted for body size

Using 2012 data from the U.S. army, the reader’s head circumference is about 1.36 standard deviations below average for an man (bottom 10%).

But the reader’s weight is 2.12 standard deviations below average for a man, and since the distribution of weight is positively skewed, his normalized deviation from the mean is 2.66 SD below the mean (bottom 0.4%).

Given that head size correlates about 0.41 with weight in U.S. men, his weight predicts his cranium would be be 2.66(0.41) = 1.09 SD below average.

Thus his cranium is only 0.27 SD smaller than his body mass predicts, so adjusted for body size, his head circumference is roughly -0.27 SD.

Statistically expected IQ

However given the average reader’s cranium is predicted to be +0.44 SD, even after adjusting for body mass, he’s about 0.67 SD smaller headed than the average reader.

And given that head circumference correlates about 0.23 with IQ, I’d expect him to be about 0.23(-0.67 SD)= 0.15 SD less intelligent than the average reader (who is a genius).

In other words, about 2 IQ points below the genius mean of 129, or roughly 127.

Of course, this is a very crude estimate with an enormous margin of error, and as the series continues, we’ll see how close it is.

Genetically superior: Was the virus made in a lab?

For over a year, the prevailing narrative among the educated class is that the coronavirus jumped from bats to humans in a Chinese wet market. However an alternative theory is that the virus was created in Chinese lab. At first this theory was only believed by right-wing morons but increasingly it has been embraced by intellectuals like Bill Maher and Saagar Enjeti.

One reason to reject the bat theory is it seems unlikely that a virus that evolved in bats would immediately be so well adapted to humans. And why would a virus that evolved in bats spread primarily indoors when bats are always outside? These two facts cause people to suspect the virus is not natural but was designed to spread in humans. And the fact that it attacks organs and causes blood clots makes some suspect it was created as a potential biological weapon that somehow escaped from the lab. Unlike the racist scum pushing ant-Asian conspiracy theories, I don’t believe it was intentionally released.

If the virus does indeed turn out to be a biological weapon, then East Asians have created a powerful new weapon that has conquered the World. Although the virus has unintentionally caused enormous pain and suffering to billions of people, the fact that they could engineer something that effective is evidence of superior East Asian intelligence.

But because humans evolved to be tribal, despicable acts of violence have been unleashed against Asian-Americans like this brutal stomping of an older Oriental woman in New York.

When I learned that the assailant was black, my heart sank. How can one minority be so racist against another? You would think that they would know better.

On the other hand, blacks were the first and most tropical humans, while Mongoloids were the last and most cold-adapted humans. If ethnic genetic interests are real, being at opposite ends of the racial spectrum may cause hostility.

However when another anti-Asian racist (this time a white one) decided to beat up an elderly Oriental woman, she beat the living shit out of him. Even though he had every advantage, being twice her size, speed and strength and youth, she used her large brain size to adapt; to take whatever situation she was in, and turn it around to her advantage.

That’s really what intelligence is.

Genetically superior.