• About

Pumpkin Person

~ The psychology of horror

Pumpkin Person

Monthly Archives: November 2014

Psychological Comments compares Gypsies to Jews

27 Thursday Nov 2014

Posted by pumpkinperson in ethnicity

≈ 278 Comments

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)

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...

Readership explodes

27 Thursday Nov 2014

Posted by pumpkinperson in Uncategorized

≈ 5 Comments

Just on my lunch break at work so don’t have time for a long post but just wanted to let everyone know that this blog just got its highest number of views in its entire history & the day’s only half over.

I think I can officially say I’m now the number one blog in the entire HBD blogosphere.  I’ve beat out EVERYONE.

At the rate I’m going I’ll be the World’s first billionaire blogger.

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...

Sadistic bully gets OWNED by Pumpkin Person

27 Thursday Nov 2014

Posted by pumpkinperson in Uncategorized

≈ 99 Comments

From an early age, I always knew I was head and shoulders above everyone else when it comes to math. I didn’t always get the best grades because I lacked the technical training, but I always had an intuitive understanding that can’t be taught. It was just something I was born with.

I remember in the tenth grade getting a very poor grade on a math test, and yet the teacher said “I was VERY impressed by some of your answers. VERY impressed.” There were people who got over 80% on the test, but partly because they memorized formulas and the proper format. By contrast my score of around 55% was entirely earned through innovative creative problem solving and inventing my own formulas, and this teacher could see it. All my life there have been these seers who recognized my potential.

But then there are the non-seers:

One of the worst parts about becoming the math star of the HBD blogosphere is you attract jealous haters, particularly a commentator named First Ypres/Mugabe who is bitter that he never accomplished anything in life despite being an aristocrat who allegedly scored perfect on all three sections of the old GRE, and he has decided to take out his anger on successful proles like me, all night, every night. Unfortunately for him, he fucked with the wrong prole.

In a recent tirade against me, he abusively argued that there are zero people who score both +2 Z scores on the SAT (IQ 130+) and less than 0 Z score on the Raven test (IQ below 100). He wrote:

you’re the one who’s obsessed with the model’s fitting extreme outliers.

i’m the one who’s saying it DOES NOT.

the model says NOTHING about people who don’t make any effort. NOTHING.

that was the point.

but you’re too autistic to grasp it.

THERE ARE A TOTAL OF 0 KIDS WHO SCORE +2 ON THE SAT AND < 0 ON THE RAVEN'S.

Actually he's 100% wrong. Such people DO exist as scatter plot C from an excellent study by professors Detterman and Frey of Case Western Reserve University shows:

sat

On the post 1995 SAT, a combined score (reading + math) of 1350+ is roughly 2 standard deviations above the general U.S. population (IQ 130+) and the chart clearly shows people above that level scoring below a Z score of 0 (IQ 100) on the Raven.

So despite the fact that First Ypres/Mugabe allegedly scored perfect on all three sections of the old GRE and got an IQ equivalent of 160 on the older (pre-1995) harder version of the SAT, and despite having Harvard/Princeton ancestors and allegedly being a participant of Steve Hsu’s BGI genetic study of the super brilliant, he doesn’t know what the fuck he’s talking about.

The moral of the story is, no matter how smart or educated you think you are, don’t fuck with me when it comes to math.

My numbers will be better than yours.

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...

Why did religion evolve?

26 Wednesday Nov 2014

Posted by pumpkinperson in ethnicity

≈ 96 Comments

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.

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...

The POWER of Bill Cosby

26 Wednesday Nov 2014

Posted by pumpkinperson in ethnicity

≈ 55 Comments

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.

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...

Bill Cosby’s high IQ caused high income independently of education

25 Tuesday Nov 2014

Posted by pumpkinperson in income

≈ 171 Comments

Given that Bill Cosby rose from humble beginnings to become one of the richest, most beloved, and most influential people in America, during an era of great racial discrimination, it’s interesting to ask what his IQ is. An article in tvguide.com provides a clue (emphasis mine):

Though Cosby is a prominent education advocate, he was a terrible student in school, opting to be the class clown instead of studying up. Because he never opened his geometry book, Cosby, who had the highest IQ in his grade, once took 12 pages to work out one of four problems on a test. He ended up getting that one right, but failed the test because he didn’t have time to attempt the other questions. The SATs? He scored a 500 total.

Critics of IQ tests (and even supporters like the Lion of the Blogosphere) often claim that IQ correlates with success, not because high IQ people behave intelligently in real life, but because you need to score high on the SAT (a disguised IQ test) to get into a good college to get into a successful career. In other words, test scores become a self-fulfilling prophecy, skeptics charge.

But Cosby is an example of someone who had the highest IQ in his grade and went on to become the richest and most popular African American of his generation despite flunking the SAT and attending a crappy college. In other words, he did well on the IQ test that didn’t matter, yet flunked the IQ test used for college admissions, yet still achieved spectacular success. This would indicate that IQ scores predict success because they predict intelligence, and not because they predict all important SAT scores.

An interesting study would be compare the future incomes of kids who flunked their SAT but did well on a regular IQ test with kids who flunked a regular IQ test but did well on the SAT. If the SAT > regular IQ test group was not more successful, then the “IQ scores are a self-fufilling prophecy” theory is debunked.

Here once again is Bill Cosby talking about his SAT scores:

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...

The Bill Cosby scandal is very sad

25 Tuesday Nov 2014

Posted by pumpkinperson in Uncategorized

≈ 22 Comments

Can’t think of anyone who did more to bring the races together than Bill Cosby.  Number one show in American television for years at a time when America & television were the most powerful forces on earth.

I think one of the reasons for his enormous popularity, beyond incredible talent, was that white America felt guilty about stereotyping dark skinned broad featured black men as sexually dangerous; for Rushton would even claim that black people had large sex organs and lacked sexual restraint because they branched off the human evolutionary tree 200,000 years ago,  unlike caucasoids who he felt branched off 110,000 years ago, & mongoloids, 41,000 years ago, were ranked as the most sexually retrained with the smallest gemitalia.

But white America felt guilt for believing such stereotypes & loved Cosby for defying them.  For here was a dark skinned broad featured black man that white America would enthusiastically trust to supervise its young women.  He was wholesome, charmingly corny & morally impeccable & reminded white America of their own beloved dads with his goofy dancing & good natured wit.

Its an epic tragedy to see such an iconic and ground breaking image shattered.

At least it did a ton of good while it lasted.

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...

Does Harvard discriminate against Asian-Americans?

21 Friday Nov 2014

Posted by pumpkinperson in Ivy League

≈ 60 Comments

Commentator “Mugabe” mentioned a new blog post by scientist Steve Hsu asking whether Harvard discriminates against Asian-Americans. Harvard and other elite universities disgust me for several reasons:

1)The whole reason IQ is so fascinating to me is that intelligent people get to the top naturally by doing smart things & avoiding dumb mistakes. Elite schools demand that smart people get ahead by doing well on an IQ test ( SAT) that gives them credentials. This takes a fascinating natural phenomenon (smart people get to the top) & reduces it to a boring socially engineered self-fulfilling prophecy & prevents us from studying the phenomenon under ideal circumstances. It’s like trying to study why the fastest cheetah gets the food only to discover someone has been testing the cheetahs for speed & feeding the fast ones instead of letting them catch food themselves.

2) Elite schools are full of hypocrites. They claim to be liberal and anti-HBD, yet they use a disguised IQ test (the SAT) as a major factor in selecting students. If that weren’t hypocritical enough, they then cherry pick from the high scoring population which students to select based on arbitrary and suspicious criteria.

3) I’m a proud Canadian. In Canada, there is no Ivy League. Here anyone can get ahead naturally through hard work, ambition, luck, and smarts. We’re not branded for life based on where we went to school at age 20. The American Ivy League thinks they’re a meritocracy but they’re largely a caste system, and graduates go out into the word and actively discriminate against people who went to lesser schools. If you look at the people who write for America’s most influential newspapers, work for America’s most lucrative investment banks, and fill influential positions in the white house, graduates of elite schools are dramatically over-represented, even after controlling for the likely IQ distribution of such occupations.

4) Ivy League schools destroy the fabric of America. If scholar Charles Murray is correct, back in the 1950s, the U.S. used to be a lot like Canada. There were small rural towns in middle America where people with IQs of 130 and IQs of 70 lived as neighbors, each contributing their unique qualities for the good of the local community. But thanks to elite schools, the best and brightest in small town rural America are being removed from their communities where they did a lot of good and sent to places like Harvard where they are recruited into the largely useless coastal elite professions. Meanwhile the small town rural communities they leave behind suffer a brain drain and degenerate into an underclass (see Charles Murray’s book Coming Apart )

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...

DNA tests will be at least as accurate at measuring IQ as IQ tests are

20 Thursday Nov 2014

Posted by pumpkinperson in heritability

≈ 91 Comments

Heritability is simply the percentage of the variation in a trait (i.e. IQ) that is “explained” by genes. It is equivalent to the correlation of genetically “identical” (i.e. MZ twins) people raised apart. But critics argue that identical twins raised apart are not separated in random ways because adoptive homes are not representative of American homes in general.

However the following formula allows us to estimate heritability without using adopted people:

H^2 = 2[(correlation between MZ twins raised together) – (correlation between DZ twins raised together)]

Based on data from wikipedia, this formula can be solved:

H^2 = 2 (0.86 – 0.55)

H^2 = 2 (0.31)

H^2 = 0.62

Although a heritability of 0.62 proves that HBDers correctly asserted that most of the variation in IQ (within Western countries) is “explained” by genes, it’s significantly lower than the heritability estimates reported by scholar Thomas Bouchard’s study of identical twins raised apart. Does this mean that critics of adoption IQ studies were right? Not necessarily. Bouchard’s data is from adults, and the data on twins reared together might not be, and since heritability is known to rise precipitously with age, that matters. Further, according to scholar Arthur Jensen, the formula I used above underestimates heritability slightly because it does not take into account the assortative mating that occurs in the parents of twins (and everyone else).

Lastly, all twin estimates of heritability are underestimates because identical twins are not 100% genetically identical.

So 0.62 is a very conservative estimate of adult heritability, yet even still, it’s quite high. Taking the square root of 0.62 tells us that IQ correlates about 0.8 with genes. This is roughly the same as two different IQ tests correlate with one another. In other words, once the genetic variants for IQ get identified, a DNA test will predict your IQ (on a future test) as accurately as your past IQ scores would. And since the IQ-genotype correlation is said to be highly mediated by g (general intelligence), while IQ tests correlate largely because of non-g factors (verbal ability, spatial ability, etc), a DNA test will likely be a better measure of g than an IQ test is!

Furthermore, if parts of Einstein’s brains are still persevered, it will be possible to sample his DNA and estimate how he would have scored on an IQ test had he been alive today, though that may not necessarily tell us much about how smart he was in his own time because of potential gene-environment interactions that don’t transcend generations. It might even be possible to examine Neanderthal DNA to test physicist Steve Hsu’s theory that neanderthal would score IQ 70 if cloned and raised in today’s America (I think that’s way too low an estimate for a people who adapted to the ice age although Hsu cites evidence that Neanderthals had low IQ genetic variants).

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...

The effect of the most extreme social environments on IQ

19 Wednesday Nov 2014

Posted by pumpkinperson in heritability

≈ 116 Comments

Imagine if we took 100 random American babies and randomly sent half of them to be raised in the worst home in America, and sent the other half to be raised in the best home in America. What would be the average difference in the IQs of the two groups by adulthood? Since there are about 123 million households in America, then assuming a normal distribution, the worst home in America would be 5.67 standard deviations (SD) below the mean in shared environment, and the best home would be 5.67 SD above the mean.

The worst home in America would probably be headed by some extreme psychopath who would lock the kids in a dark basement their whole childhood with no access to schooling, books, television and basic hygiene. The best home in America would headed by a benevolent billionaire with a PhD is child psychology who would be determined to raise a bunch of geniuses and thus surround each of the 50 kids with a dozen turtors who would tutor them in everything, every waking hour of the day.

According to scholar Arthur Jensen, the adult IQ correlation between unrelated people raised in the same home is -0.01. This is an incredibly low figure. Wikipedia claims the adult IQ correlation between unrelated people raised together is +0.04 which sounds a lot more believable. Averaging wikipedia’s figure with Jensen’s figure, gives a value of 0.015; meaning that 1.5% of the variation in adult IQ is explained by shared environment. Taking the square root of this correlation tells us that shared environment correlates 0.12 with adult IQ.

Assuming the correlation between IQ and shared environment is linear throughout the full range, we should expect the kids adopted into the worst home in America (-5.67) to have an IQ that is 0.12(-5.67) = -0.68 SD, and we would expect the kids adopted into the best home in America to have an IQ of 0.12(+5.67) = +0.68 SD.

In other words, we should expect kids adopted into the worst and best home in America to average IQs of 90 and 110 respectively. A difference of 20 IQ points. And even this difference would be largely spurious; that is because of subtle and obvious cultural biases on IQ tests, IQ tests would overestimate the ability of the kids from the best home and underestimate the ability of the kids from the worst homes, so the difference in their real intelligence would be much less than 20 IQ points.

Of course, all of this assumes that the adoption studies cited by Jensen and wikipedia are meaningful and can be generalized to American society as a whole. Commentator “Mugabe” seems to think that less than one fifth of the variance in (American) homes exists in adoptive homes. This is known as the range restriction problem.

Correcting for range restriction

It is well known that in samples where there is inadequate range, correlations tend to be spuriously low and unrepresentative of the correlation in the general population. For example, in the general population, the correlation between height and basketball skill is quite strong, as evidenced by the fact that Michael Jordan is a heck of a lot taller than the average American. But compared to other NBA players, Jordan is not tall at all suggesting little correlation between height and basketball skill among NBA players. This happens because virtually all NBA players are extremely tall. When everyone is of similar height; height makes little difference to basketball skill.

We see the same thing with IQ. Among elementary school kids, the correlation between IQ and grades is 0.65, but among law students, the correlation between LSAT scores and grades is 0.4 at the most. This is because elementary school kids have a much wider range of IQ for grades to correlate with than law students (who almost all have IQs above 105).

Similarly, there could be a range restriction issue in adoption studies. Since adoptive parents tend to be high quality people who are altruistic enough to raise unrelated kids and have enough money to afford them, bad homes are underrepresented in adoption studies, and there might simply not be enough range of environments for IQ to correlate with, hence adoption studies might suggest spuriously low correlations between IQ and shared environment. Fortunately, there are formulas to correct for range restriction (see formula 1 in this paper).

If we assume that environments of adoptive homes have only one fifth the variance of the general population (which is probably a huge exaggeration of the difference) then the environmental standard deviation would be only 45% as large. Armed with this data, I applied formula 1, and the correlation between IQ and shared environment more than doubled from 0.12 to 0.26. This means that the expected IQ difference between random kids randomlyadopted into the worst and best home in America would more than double. Instead of the difference being 20 points (IQ 90 vs IQ 110), the difference is now 44 points (IQ 78 vs IQ 122).

So assuming the HBD deniers are right about adoption studies suffering greatly from range restriction (which I doubt), then shared environment can produce huge differences in IQ, but only when the difference in shared en differences in shared environment are unbelievably extreme. Simply going from a typical black home to a typical Ashkenazi Jewish home is unlikely to raise an adopted child’s IQ by more than 5 points in adulthood, and even then, the difference would be largely spurious. In other words, the social environment when extremely good, can greatly improve culturally specific skills and attitudes that help one do well on an IQ test, but it probably doesn’t make one truly smarter. There’s a subtle difference between a good test taker and a genuinely intelligent person.

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...
← Older posts

contact pumpkinperson at easiestquestion@hotmail.ca

Recent Comments

Some Guy on GENETICALLY SUPERIOR: East Asi…
King meLo on GENETICALLY SUPERIOR: East Asi…
King meLo on GENETICALLY SUPERIOR: East Asi…
King meLo on GENETICALLY SUPERIOR: East Asi…
King meLo on GENETICALLY SUPERIOR: East Asi…
animal rights EXTREM… on GENETICALLY SUPERIOR: East Asi…
LOADED on GENETICALLY SUPERIOR: East Asi…
LOADED on GENETICALLY SUPERIOR: East Asi…
the exotic becomes e… on GENETICALLY SUPERIOR: East Asi…
Tomorrow, and tomorr… on GENETICALLY SUPERIOR: East Asi…
Lamarckxism on GENETICALLY SUPERIOR: East Asi…
Jacobin on GENETICALLY SUPERIOR: East Asi…
i can say "dude" bec… on GENETICALLY SUPERIOR: East Asi…
Jacobin on GENETICALLY SUPERIOR: East Asi…
Austin Slater on GENETICALLY SUPERIOR: East Asi…

Archives

  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014

Categories

  • autism
  • chronometrics
  • dark dramas
  • ethnic genetic interests
  • ethnicity
  • Flynn effect
  • genetic similarity theory
  • heritability
  • horror
  • income
  • Ivy League
  • love stories
  • Low IQ
  • Michael Jackson
  • Oprah
  • politics
  • pumpkinperson
  • Uncategorized

Meta

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.com

Recent Comments

Some Guy on GENETICALLY SUPERIOR: East Asi…
King meLo on GENETICALLY SUPERIOR: East Asi…
King meLo on GENETICALLY SUPERIOR: East Asi…
King meLo on GENETICALLY SUPERIOR: East Asi…
King meLo on GENETICALLY SUPERIOR: East Asi…
animal rights EXTREM… on GENETICALLY SUPERIOR: East Asi…
LOADED on GENETICALLY SUPERIOR: East Asi…
LOADED on GENETICALLY SUPERIOR: East Asi…
the exotic becomes e… on GENETICALLY SUPERIOR: East Asi…
Tomorrow, and tomorr… on GENETICALLY SUPERIOR: East Asi…
Lamarckxism on GENETICALLY SUPERIOR: East Asi…
Jacobin on GENETICALLY SUPERIOR: East Asi…
i can say "dude" bec… on GENETICALLY SUPERIOR: East Asi…
Jacobin on GENETICALLY SUPERIOR: East Asi…
Austin Slater on GENETICALLY SUPERIOR: East Asi…

Archives

  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014

Categories

  • autism
  • chronometrics
  • dark dramas
  • ethnic genetic interests
  • ethnicity
  • Flynn effect
  • genetic similarity theory
  • heritability
  • horror
  • income
  • Ivy League
  • love stories
  • Low IQ
  • Michael Jackson
  • Oprah
  • politics
  • pumpkinperson
  • Uncategorized

Meta

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.com

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Cancel

 
Loading Comments...
Comment
    ×
    <span>%d</span> bloggers like this: