The esteemed IQ blog Psychological Comments has a post up comparing Gypsies to Jews. It states:

The contrast with European Jews is instructive: both are minorities with distinctive cultures and world views; both have inbred to some degree; both have been subject to prejudice, ostracism and very much worse; both have struggled to find a niche in Europe, and yet both have (mostly) remained in Europe. However, there the similarities end, and the differences multiply. European Jews venerated scholarship, the Roma cannot see its purpose. Jews made themselves useful at the highest levels of the economy, barely tolerated but sourly respected for their financial and scholarly acumen. Gypsies made themselves resented at the lowest levels of the economy (though some recently became metal recycling millionaires after the fall of Communist heavy industry) and little respected for wheeling and dealing. Here is a thematic apperception test: what made the difference?

Perhaps it was only a difference in root stock: Roma from India, Jews from Italy.

But the original stock of both Roma and Jews are non-white caucasoids. Both groups migrated to Europe where they gradually became more and more white, either because they interbred with Europeans, or because there was actual natural selection for light skin; or both. But “Psychological Comments” seems to be implying that the difference is Jews became white (Italian stock?) while Gypsies remained non-white caucasoids (Indian stock).

But in a groundbreaking investigation, I reported that adjusted for nutrition, the IQ difference between whites (IQ 99) and non-white caucasoids (IQ 90) is only 9 points, yet the difference between Jews (IQ 110) and Gypsies (IQ roughly 70) is 40 points, despite the fact that both live in largely first world countries. How do we explain it?

It should be noted that Gypsies are descended from India’s untouchables (the lowest caste) so they are probably one standard deviation below the non-white caucasoid mean in occupation status. Since IQ and occupational status correlate 0.7, assuming this correlation transcends countries, then we might expect the original gypsies to have IQs 1 SD(0.7) = 0.7 SD (11 points) below the genetic mean of non-white caucasoids (IQ 79 instead of IQ 90). The rest of the low Gypsy IQ can probably be explained by culturally biased IQ tests. It’s known that dropping out of high school causes IQ scores (but probably not intelligence) to drop by 8 points and Gypsies have very little schooling.

In fact it seems that in childhood, a huge sample of Gypsies score 83 on the Raven Colored Progressive Matrices, but another huge sample of adults had IQs of 70 on the same or similar form of the test. Assuming the samples were of the same type of Gypsies, that’s evidence of declining IQ,perhaps caused by dropping out of school. Although I do believe culture reduced IQ tests exist, I’m not sure if the Raven is one of them. I think in order for a test to be culture reduced it has to be fun for all cultures, and the Raven just requires too much thinking and feels too much like school. Indeed scholar J.P. Rushton was struck how many Gypsies independently complained that the test was giving them a headache. I believe dropping out of school makes you intellectually lazy, and this lack of motivation spuriously drags down the scores of the unschooled on tests requiring concentration and persistence.

As for the high IQs of Jews, I think you begin with the fact that the original non-white Jews (genetic IQ 90) interbred with whites (IQ 99) creating a hybrid population (IQ 95), and then only the subset of those of high occupational status were able to maintain their Jewish faith through the generations, which might explain how the average got all the way up to 110. And of course, just as a lack of education spuriously drags down the IQs of Gypsies, it’s possible all the extra days of Hebrew school boosts Jewish IQ, especially since some evidence suggests Jewish IQ increases after puberty (though this could be a genetic effect)

Even though I’m a hardcore atheist, I like religious fundamentalists, regardless of whether they are Christain, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, etc, etc. Combining a few of my own ideas with what I’ve overheard over the years, from various scientists talking on television, religion perhaps evolved for the following reasons:

1) THEORY OF MIND: If some wind comes along and blows your home away, you could either think it’s a random, or that it was intentional. You’re better off thinking it was intentional, because people who are paranoid about others being out to get them are more likely to survive. However this tendency to think events were intentionally caused leads naturally to the idea of a God, because what is God if not an intentional mind causing the events of the universe to occur on purpose.

2) HOPE Unless we believe that there is meaning to our lives and that he will continue on in the afterlife, we would be at risk of becoming too depressed to carry on. Thus, evolution favored genes for religiosity.

3) ETHNIC SOLIDARITY Religion is the glue that holds a people together and causes them to intermarry one another. It condemns feminism because feminism decreases the fertility of the group’s women. It condemns homosexuality because this decreases the fertility of the group’s men. It condemns other religions because this prevents out-breeding. It condemns adultery and disobedience of our parents because such behaviors disintegrate the family. Because people who share the same religion tend to breed with one another, over the centuries they largely become their own gene pool, ethnicity, or micro-race.

One reason liberals hate religion is they don’t want to see certain gene pools preserved. Religious and socially conservative people are labeled “proles”, a made-up word that stigmatizes certain people who behave in ways that benefit certain gene pools. Oblivious to the propaganda and the purpose that it serves, many people abandon their religious socially conservative cultural roots to be accepted by the Ivy League elites.

Even though Bill Cosby is worth hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollar, his real power comes not from economic capital, but from social capital; specifically moral authority. Packing the highest IQ in his entire childhood school, he grew up to be America’s dad, and just exudes moral authority, to the point where an AP reporter crumbles in his presence:

You know someone has power when they don’t even need to raise their voice, in fact Cosby lowered his voice and slowed his speech, yet still dominated with quiet dignity. So powerful is Cosby that simply by quietly, slowly lecturing the white reporter like he was one of the kids on The Cosby Show, he was able to get questions of alleged sexual misconduct edited out.

But despite his enormous power, you can’t help but feel sorry for him, when you see the look on Cosby’s face. For Cosby is an American icon of epic proportions and a moral authority figure writ-large, so for him of all people to be faced with the indignity of being asked if he was sexually abusive towards young women was one of the saddest moments in American history.

Despite being older and slower with advanced age, Cosby’s high IQ shines through when he jumps on an opportunity. He overhears a white woman agreeing with him that the question the reporter was asking was inappropriate and uses this to his advantage by saying “mam, what did you say?” forcing her to assert her defense of Cosby more visibly even though she would have preferred to stay in the background. One reason high IQ people get rich is they see an opportunity and have the quick thinking to grab it before it slips away. Most 77-year-olds would have just continued their monologue rigidly ignoring the comment of some white woman in the background, but Cosby had the agility to adapt his strategy in real time, and knew he could use his sheer power to persuade her into being more assertive.

Intelligence is the ability to adapt.

Although Cosby showed enormous power in getting the question edited out, as more women have come forward with accusations, Cosby’s power is vanishing, and the AP news source decided to release all the footage, including the footage of Cosby asking them not to use the footage!!! Cosby’s mistake was not telling them to turn off the cameras before he started his lecture. This demonstrates that even a guy with the highest IQ in his childhood school can still miscalculate. No matter how much IQ you have, you never get to a point where you don’t need more, which is why I have long argued that the correlation between IQ and success is largely linear throughout the full range of worldly success.

I’m not a fan of Glenn Beck, but it’s interesting how he’s rallying to Cosby’s defense while the liberal media is lynching Cosby.

And I noticed that Fox News is not covering the Cosby story at all, though CNN has become the Cosby News Network. Do liberal hate Cosby because he lectured the black underclass to pull up their pants? Do they hate him because he’s rich? Or are liberals subconsciously racist, but they feel guilty about it, so they become liberal, but once a black gets too uppity, their repressed racism comes roaring to the surface.

Liberals call conservatives racist because conservatives hate Obama, but Obama hatred, in my opinion, has more to do with the fact that conservatives are brainwashed into hating Muslims, and they despise Obama for having a Muslim middle name. They also hate Ivy League intellectuals and Obama is certainly that. They also hate liberals and Obama is that. So where is racism?

Obama is only half-black, and the black half is East African who have more narrow delicate caucasoid features and gracile physiques than West Africans. In fact East Africans might be the missing link as humans evolved from archaic negroids into archaic caucasoids. By contrast, Cosby, with his dark skin and broad features, looks hardcore negroid.

But the fact that conservatives don’t join the lynch mob against Cosby suggests they might not be racist. There was a time when a black boy could be literally lynched just for whistling at a white woman, and now an old black man allegedly rapes young white women, and conservatives rally to his defense or refuse to pile on. For better or for worse, that’s the polar opposite of racism.