As scholar Arthur Jensen & others argued, big heads are a huge liability because they are metabolically expensive, increase the odds of babies and mothers dieing during child birth, burden the musculoskeletal system, require wider hips for child birth which slows down running, are a fatal target for an enemies club or missile, and overheat like a lightbulb in warm climates. Despite being so maladaptive, cranial capacity roughly tripled as apes evolved into humans over the last 4 million years, because it offered the ultimate advantageous adaptation: intelligence, the ability to adapt any situation to your advantage.
As humans migrated north to novel and freezing environments, adaptability was more crucial than ever. And yet 20,000 years ago brains began to shrink? Why? The ice age started ending & we simply didnt need to be as smart anymore to survive. Intelligence was still an advantage, but as life was no longer challenging, it was negated by all the disadvantages of large heads, so evolution selected for smaller heads and IQ got lower as a result yet still remained high enough for us to invent agriculture when the climate became so hospitable it was hard to fail at farming.
With agriculture came massive population & freak genetic mutations that improved brain efficiency which compensated for our shrunken brains (which were suddenly shrinking even more because of the malnutrition of agriculture). These brain efficiency mutations probably spread to all but the most isolated humans (i.e. hunter/gatherers) which might explain why arctic people have lower IQs than their brain size & challenging climate predicts
Another less likely possibility is arctic people are actually smarter than whites but our held back by poverty.
It’s not that humans have become more stupid. First, we need to make sure as archaic humans behave and then you can infer any comparison.
The cranial volume jumped, possibly because of Neanderthal genes. This produced a disadvantageous effect, because it may be possible, of course speculation, that hybrid babies had larger brains, while the size of the pelvis of the mothers did not follow this increase. I’ve seen a documentary talking about it, that the child-birth by human females is one of the most painful in nature, precisely because of this maladaption between head size of human infants and the pelvis of females.
The head size probably decreased because children with a very large head, could be born with some kind of delay, caused by child-birth stress or injury (or because bigger head childrens are naturally mone risk to develop cognitive problems). Children under stress or any injury at birth, born healthier and breed more. Children with ‘smaller’ heads.
http://www.gifteddevelopment.com/highly-and-profoundly-gifted/profoundly-gifted
This interesting study on children ” with ” IQ above 160, shows that at 40% of birth, had some type of stress.
Smarter Women tend to be more masculine and thus can have smaller pelvis than the average woman. A suggestion Astor, who is my friend.
Or, gifted children tend to have larger heads. Births tend to be more complicated.
The correlation between ” iq ” and ” head size ”, ON AVERAGE, is relatively ”medium” (to not repeat the word ”average”). Probably because as the intelligence is polygenic and complex, there are many phenotypes, is to high, medium or low intelligence, where . But it may be that for more intelligent, there is a real need in the brain is greater than average, but with the balance of the neural complexity.
Smarter Women tend to be more masculine and thus can have smaller pelvis than the average woman. A suggestion by Astor, who is my friend.
Or, gifted children tend to have large heads. Births tend to be more complicated.
The correlation between ” iq ” and ” head size ”, ON AVERAGE, is relatively average. Probably because as the intelligence is polygenic and complex, there are many phenotypes, is to high, medium or low intelligence. But it may be that for more intelligent, there is a real need in the brain is greater than average, but with the balance with the neural complexity.
http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/chapter-XII20.htm
Simple explanation is big heads are such a huge burden that evolution doesn’t allow it unless its essential for survival. When climate warmed, intelligence was less essential so head was free to shrink
”Yes”, but why??
Big head= huge burden, less for inuit and other mongolic-arctic tribes…
=)))
Arctic people moved North so intelligence was essential but because they were geographically isolated, they lacked the new mutations that increased brain efficiency. Thus the only way they could get an average IQ above 90 (which was needed in the cold) was through big average head. Other races had mutations so they could have the same IQ with smaller brain size
the elephant brain can weigh 4x the human brain according to the Discover article I cited.
pp is still resisting the most parsimonious explanation.
Scandinavians have large heads for the same reason they dominate powerlifting.
variation in mean cc between populations results from Allen’s and Bergmann’s rule. if there is a difference in intelligence…whatever that means…this is a spandrel.
pp’s explanation has more anomalies than mine. yet he clutches it like it was his black dildo.
Climate both directly & indirectly selects for IQ. If the IQ differences were only an indirect consequence of head size selection, they would be much smaller
yeah a blue whale or an an elephant has a bigger brain. doesn’t mean they are more intelligent . it has more to do with the composition of the brain. A parrot has a much smaller brain
grey enlightenment, whales & elephants have big brains because they have big bodies. Relative to body size, their brains are much smaller than ours
”the elephant brain can weigh 4x the human brain according to the Discover article I cited.”
My 17 year old very higher iq cousin use same argument when we talk about race and brain size.
I know you can do more, 😉
My cousin (with german, northern italian, portuguese and possibly slightly african and amerindian ancestry) accept its defeat in this micro-debate when i explain it about brain size and body proportions.
another example of the social construction of race…
my really old, 1960, encyclopedia categorizes Polynesians as Caucasoids.
based on appearance I suppose.
of course they’re much more closely related to SE Asians than they are Europeans genetically.
Save your racism for the warehouse where it will be appreciated
???
Very weak argument. Color skin, facial features, different blood types frequences, different cognitive and psychological profiles aren’t social constructions but the otherwise.
pp is claiming that civilization selected for stupidity and intelligence simultaneously.
if pp doesn’t have a vagina he wishes he did.
only a woman could be so illogical.
I said warming climate selected for smaller heads but also created an opportunity for agriculture .
Pumpkin Person if you are very intelligent how many languages you speak? 🙂 My native is Spanish and naturally I speak English, currently I am into Mandarin Chinese therefore I tend to listen to Chinese music but also Kpop versions in that language. Aside of that I used to study Japanese and Korean very deeply (for months), in shorter periods Portuguese, and very very brieftly I just tried German, French and Hindi. I dropped everything except Chinese.
It depends what you mean by speak. There aren’t too many languages that I’m super articulate in but I’ve been all over the world & given puzzles to remote people who didnt speak a word of English
pp is lying as usual.
and has been successfully conned by the exclusively low IQ members of high IQ societies.
Maybe for someone who works in a warehouse & doesn’t own a passport, traveling the world sounds too fantastical to be true, but where I come from its just expected. People here look at you like you’re odd if you haven’t experienced multiple cultures.
more lies.
i own a passport.
and indeed it is a lie that you have traveled the world giving people puzzles.
a simple bold-faced lie.
just as it was a lie that you are a college graduate. you are not.
just as it was a lie that you work in a high status occupation. you do not.
just as it was a lie that you are a white heterosexual male. you are not.
Your comments drip of racism
i’m only a racist or or sexist or classist or heterosexist or whatever when people from these group display false consciousness. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_consciousness
just as it was a lie that you are a college graduate. you are not.
Maybe at the warehouse you work in, having a college degree is so rare it’s worth fabricating but where I’m from it’s totally average & not something one would lie about.
just as it was a lie that you work in a high status occupation. you do not.
Compared to your job it is very high status. I have to dress professionally, deal with rich clients & visit parliament hill & the Chateau Laurier
Pumpkin writes to Macaca:
Ouch. That’s going to leave a mark.
then why do you lie about it?
if you had a degree you would say what it was in. if you had a real job you would say what it was.
you do not travel the world giving puzzles. that was a lie.
just like it was a lie that you got hundreds of e-mails or etc.
and the same goes for English teacher Pincher.
You have it backwards. I’m not giving details precisely because I’m telling the truth. If i wanted to lie i would just makeup an occupations & college majors
I’m probably several SD above average in honesty & am constantly told how genuine I am. You’re a horrible judge of character… You probably have an all pervasive developmental disability that impairs your social IQ & prevents you from forming an accurate Theory of Mind of what motivates others
again the exact opposite of the truth.
you’re a college drop out.
you lied about receiving hundreds of e-mails after the shooting.
you lied about receiving an e-mail claiming i wasn’t in the bgi study.
you’re DELUSiONAL to think you’re famous or the best known racist blogger.
you lie and lie and lie.
you lied about receiving e-maiuls prasing PM. unless he sent them himself.
your lies are so obvious, it’s obvious you’re under 13 or disabled.
LOL! Not only do you have all pervasive developmental disability that impairs your social IQ, but your long term memory is not great
I never claimed to have received hundreds of emails following the shooting. I actually claimed thousands poured in after the shooting & thanked the subset who emailed me, without specifying how many did
The only racist is you.
And I’ve received MANY emails about you & the learned Pincher Martin. Of course I’m selective about which ones i discuss
sorry i didn’t get the lie big enough on the shooting.
you’re delusional and autistic.
This debate is beginning to sound a tiny bit ad hominem. But who is the good guy and who is Suzuki?
suzuki was the good guy.
it’s another example of pp’s autism that she regards Rushton, Jensen, and Lynn as “scientists”. they aren’t anything of the sort.. nor are they scholars.
You think I lied about thousands pouring in after the shooting? My God, you’re clueless. To put it in perspective, Steve Hsu estimates that each of his posts are eventually read by 10,000 people.
you lied about the number of emails.
and steve hsu is hardly read by anyone let alone 10000 unless it’s a post on some charged topic..
more autism from someone with a total of 37 followers for her blog.
you’re ridiculous.
LOL! I never specified how many emails so how could I lie about it. And someone with autism could not do the job i do with rich clients & political clients at chateau laurier & parliament hill. Such people are very passive aggressive & subtle so you need to be razor sharp with body language & social cues
You’re too clueless to know the difference between science & political correctness
You probably do have autism to have performed so far below your self-reported IQ occupationally despite nepotism & social privelige.
whatever your trade is it’s clearly shameful or you’d say what it was.
“i dress nice and deal with rich people and political people and some poor people.”
what a joke.
yet more prolisms from a prole.
the correlation between IQ and income i and swank have already been through with you, but as usual you just plugged your ears and said blah, blah, blah.
one only performs if performing is his goal.
as i’ve said i don’t have to work at all. but the warehouse manager makes at least a quarter million a year.
i guess chris langan is autistic too.
you’re a fucking retard.
Chris Langan came from a disadvantaged background & lacked a quality education. What’s your excuse?
my excuse is i’ve never wanted status or to be a billionaire or whatever. or rather it’s not worth the price. i’d have to actually try. if i have to make any effort at all i just say f— it. success is having the luxury of not caring.
sounds like you’re a salesman.
am i right willy loman?
but what’re you selling to poor people and rich people?
time shares?
tax avoidance schemes?
annuities?
prostitutes?
or are you in pr?
there’re only so many things people will pay you for.
the 1% in america is 70% business executives, doctors, lawyers, etc.
the rest is a hodgepodge.
only a tiny fraction of small businessmen are in the 1%.
so there’s no real Darwinian struggle going on except getting into professional school or having the right connections.
it’s not what you know it’s who you know and what your credentials are.
maybe the 1% is lower in Canada, but if you’re not a credential professional the odds are long you’re in it pp..
Why do you hate yourself so much? There’s nothing wrong with working in a warehouse babysitting power tools. Money & status aren’t everything.
typical.
just more lies.
i don’t baby sit power tools or baby sit any other sort of tools. i’m a trainee in an industrial distributor and subsidiary of a fortune 500 company. it’s a real job.unlike my former job as an actuary.
you on the other hand…
A trainee doing what? How much money do you make a year?
so i have to answer your questions but you don’t have to answer mine? i’ve told you already, i make more than the median wage for a white male with my education. look it up. and reveal more about yourself. or just keep lying. with investment income i make even more.
We all know “Pincher Martin” is brilliant and several eminent people have privately emailed me to praise him, but on this issue, I think he might be wrong.
did not happen.
or pp has no idea at all what eminent means.
It absolutely 100% happened AND IT HAS HAPPENED SINCE!. You are unbelievably ignorant about who is reading
then as i said you have no idea what eminent means. just as you have no idea what science means.
anyone who thinks people in high iq societies aren’t retarded is retarded.
i’m wondering whether or not racist retards can tell the difference between lies and facts.
one reveals what he is not ashamed of. one does not reveal what he is ashamed of.
so far pp has revealed nothing.
it’s not as if pp could be identified by saying what her major was or saying what her industry is. and i for one would never try.
no one who likes horror movies or takes Jensen seriously lives outside a trailer park.
no one who likes horror movies or takes Jensen seriously lives outside a trailer park.
You consider HBD & horror stupid & thus assume only the poor could indulge in both
That’s some serious bigotry
Huh…
Humans were smarter 20k years ago but failed to produce anything like the cultures we have today.
…..but IQ is very important in modern society, allegedly. Evidence that blacks can’t cut it in modern society is that blacks, like the SMARTER humans of yesteryear, failed to produce this culture.
….
Hey what about the lower skull variance among whites than blacks, despite having greater IQ variation? Supports the Spandrel explanation.
indeed.
there is nothing but “anomalies”. if pp could only reason she could escape the trailer park.
the lower IQ variance of black Americans, like the reported IQ of 60 or whatever for Bushmen is PROOF to all who aren’t mentally retarded, like pp, that the tests’ validity is nil outside the population for which it was developed.
I didn’t say humans were smarter 20 K ago than they are today. IQ began declining 20 K ago, but rebounded genetically post agriculture.
But IQ alone does not cause civilization. It seems climate first had to warm enough for agriculture & all the life style changes it conferred
As for lower IQ variation + higher cranial variation; neither are reliable phenomena nor especially theoretically significant
I said lower cranial variation and higher IQ variation. Implies that selection acted on the cranium and not as much or not at all on IQ.
Ok so humans were smarter then started getting dumber but then they got smarter again by way of a completely different mechanism.
And how long did this rebound take….
more anomalies without any explanation.
peeeepeeee does NOT have a theory.
if she did she could state it. she hasn’t.
the best theory is that large cc and head size follow from Allen’s rule and Bergmann’s rule and are thus the result of direct adaptation to cold or heat. but that the proportion of cc to overall body size, EQ, is not linear.
if higher T selected for lower intelligence why was higher intelligence selected for simultaneously?
apparently pp didn’t even read the article.
there was NOT a flat lining of EQ in the stone age.
it was PRECISELY agriculture which occasioned the reduction in brain volume.
that is, in all areas pre-ag peoples had larger EQ, not just larger cc, but a larger ratio of cc to overall body size.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encephalization_quotient
You’re not intelligent enough to read HBD blogs. Intelligence was still selected for but as selection for IQ relaxed, it was overwhelmed by selection for smaller heads. Big heads are generally a liability. Only when intelligence is of critical importance are they not selected against, & when temp dropped, so did the importance if IQ. Only when IQ could be produced more cheaply (brain efficiency mutation ) was it again positively selected
you obviously didn’t read what i wrote or the article i cited.
can you read? at all?
i’m not intelligent enough to read pseudo-scientific racist blogs?
sort of like Buckley was “too intelligent to believe in Gott” according to the smokestack, nymphomaniac, satanist Ayn Rand.
Buckley told her, “you’ll have to document that.”
if only pp were running the BGI study, she could include all her apopheniac number sequence solvers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia
There just isn’t good evidence that IQ has been under much directional selection.
a better theory than warming climate alone given that it was ag that occasioned smaller EQ in the fossil record is that man has domesticated himself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox
and this corresponds to my own large headed experience that most of my fellow humans appear to be sheep.
here’s the Chomsk again:
Scientific America claimed heads got smaller all over the world, not just where agriculture appeared
more ignorance from pp.
1. it was Discover.
2. SSA has been agriculturalist and/or pastoralists almost as long as Mesopotamia.
3. i said, “a better theory than warming climate alone“. and this was a theory given in the article. in some ways dogs are MUCH MUCH smarter than wolves. YET they have smaller brains.
in one way parrots are the smartest animals.
i remember my parents had to give up their parrot when they left Bahia and it was like giving up a dog or a child.
Why did you assume I was referring to Africa you racist. And scientific America covered the shrinking brain story too
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-have-our-brains-started-to-shrink/
because you hate on SSAs and the article i cited was from Discover.
HBD = blah, blah, blah,…black people are stupid.
in some ways dogs are MUCH MUCH smarter than wolves. YET they have smaller brains.
In some ways chimps are much much smarter than humans . All animals are smart at something, but as my chemistry teacher said, if you want a single umbrella to cover all of intelligence, it’s the ability to adapt. To take whatever situation you’re in & turn it around to your advantage
Example of chimps being smarter than humans
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zsXP8qeFF6A
once again oblivious pp has hoist herself by her own petard.
IQ tests don’t and can’t test something so vague and abstract as “the ability to adapt”, and so they don’t.
Border Collies and Standard Poodles DOMINATE obedience competitions. thus these two breeds are the “smartest”.
but then my Irish Setter has killed five squirrels.
your chemistry teacher?
seriously?
pp is a globe trotting puzzle giver who graduated with honors in some unknown non-STEM field and she’s quoting her chemistry teacher.
pp,
I scored in the 99th percentile on the GRE subject test in chemistry and all four of the ACAS exams, organic, inorganic, physical, and analytic.
should’ve been …ACS exams….
now if you want to criticize my spelling and typing…
I actually love SSA & it’s diaspora. I think they’re genetically behind but that doesn’t mean i love them any less. Just the opposite
and as Chomsky has said in so many words and as i have said:
in the contemporary developed market/mixed economy it isn’t clear that “adaptation” means anything like what it used to mean.
today one must adapt to a particular man-made world. in the distant past it was man vs nature. today it is much more man vs man. or more perspicuously man vs sheeple.
there are a very few professions where all the matters is “can you do it”, but even this criterion is subjective in the context of large organizations.
those who make their living by doing what others can’t do or by doing better than any are a tiny minority.
‘Border Collies and Standard Poodles DOMINATE obedience competitions. thus these two breeds are the “smartest”.’
Suzuki even had an episode on The Nature of Things on how man has become for the most part a domesticated animal.
the sheep leading the sheep…
Sound entirely possible that head size and intelligence rose, and then changes in climate allowed some of that to be reversed. And when other avenues of increasing intelligence (not burdening with bigger heads) were found (as they will be found by nature), then intelligence can increase again, and be cost efficient for the organism.
PP’s theory sounds alrigt to me. And it would seem that the sharp rise in jewish intelligence happened without correspondingly bigger heads (tho probably bigger heads than they had before). You don’t need to pick ONLY restructuring OR bigger heads.
you’ve the better of me if you actually see a theory.
all i see is hysteria.
I see this post as a qualification of the preceding post, after some feedback. What is says is, yes, big heads can be good against cold, and for the moment forget about whether the iq or the bigger head is the primary driver, maybe both,
Whan the climate gets warmer, there is less need for big heads AND for intelligence. I guess that is possible, warmer climate in a still primitive society.
Then time passes and nature looks for a way to increase intelligence without the added troubles of bigger heads. A little bigger heads can still be allowed, but most has to come from better wiring of the brain.
The amount of smarts under heavy selection would probably be > actual retardation smarts. (no, an IQ of 70 or below is not sufficient for mental retardation). Most people who qualify as mentally disabled either have some rare genetic disorder or suffered some environmental mishap,which is much the same as individuals who have lost fingers.
“no, an IQ of 70 or below is not sufficient for mental retardation”
Question is how’s it possible that africans can have an iq of such and such, when my friend Billy who’s got the same iq mostly stares into a wall all day.
Swank and Rushton have got the answer, Billy has a disorder that handicaps him in many more ways than iq alone.
Which makes sense only if IQ measures a degree of culture learning. If IQ measured raw “cognitive ability,” then the score would be sufficient.
Rushton says that for a european to score 70, it takes severe disorder, otherwise a score of 70 hardly ever shows up. On the other hand for other populations, 70 may be within the normal range, and can be scored without disorder. You don’t have to turn to culture for an explanation. Or rather, you only turn to culture if you view it as a given that this specific human capacity is the same between ethnic groups.
Exactly Hugh, when the population exploded post-agriculture, evolution had much more genetic variation to play with & thus could find more cost efficient ways of increasing intelligence than head size
And about artic peoples. We have many in Denmark. They are nice and friendly, not out to conquer Denmark. But I haven’t seen any indication they would be smarter than europeans.
Suzuki vs Rushton says it all. It’s not necessarily true that race is meaningless as a biological concept, but there are certainly many reasons for believing as much. Even something like sickle-cell isn’t a “black” disease. It’s just a disease common to groups that came from regions where malaria was common. Suzuki was trying to point out that the allele-frequency categorization is so arbitrary that anygroup could be considered a race.
The fact that HBDers believe Rushton “won” the debate says a lot. They are impressed by form over substance. Rushton spoke slowly and wore glasses. Suzuki didn’t even bother to comb his hair and acted as though he was arguing against a fairy tale. Suzuki’s gauntlet was ‘show me the categories/groups are biologically meaningful, then we’ll talk.” Rushton proceeded to assume they were meaningful and give a greatest hits of his work.
“J.P. Rushton’s view of human evolution suffers from the use of antiquated and simplistic theoretical models concerning life history evolution. In addition, his methods of data analysis, results, and data sources call into question the legitimacy of his research. In the unabridged version of his book, he claims ‘to have reviewed the international literature on race differences, gathered novel data and found a distinct pattern’ (Rushton, 1995: xiii). This is fallacious on many accounts. Although the scope of the literature is
international, to an extent, the data are not novel and the pattern he ‘found’ is hardly distinct from common racist stereotypes. He has only spun a tangled web of disingenuous construction speculations, in which:
1 He failed to grasp the history and formulation of density dependent selection theory.
2 He failed to review the critical experiments that falsified the central predictions of
r- and K-selection theory.
3 He incorrectly applied r- and K-theory to explain human life history evolution.
4 He has presented data that are woefully inadequate to test any specific hypothesis
concerning the evolution of human life histories.”
http://mathsci.free.fr/graves.pdf
Suzuki really tore the mask off when he concluded,
…come on. let’s get serious…from big penises to smaller ones…
this isn’t science. for God’s sake if you’re serious about this, do all of the proper controls, do all of the other analyses about intermarriage, about successive generations growing up in different countries before you even dare to make such outrageous statements.
Suzuki’s outrage is well-placed in opposition to outrageous claims.
for all the whining about the liberal agenda, HBD scientists in fact take money from an organization dedicated to promoting the ideal that — unsurprisingly — their data show.
i’m sure HBDers have an explanation for why almost every modern male human, even Suzuki, is like John Holmes compared to a chimp or gorilla.
“More importantly, statistically equating blacks and whites on measures of the environment that include
not only traditional indicators of SES but also measures of family and neighborhood quality virtually eliminates the B/W IQ gap (Brooks-Gunn & colleagues, in chapter xx)”
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~nisbett/racegen.pdf
And before the typical objections get aired:
“Such a result could simply mean that less intelligent parents provide their children with less intellectually
stimulating environments. Yet, statistically equating mother’s IQs does not change these results. Thus, the data are more consistent with a purely environmental interpretation of the B/W gap than with a genetic one.”
Hm. No response.
so much for “all the evidence” showing that black Africans can’t run modern countries:
“China and India get all the headlines for their economic prowess, but there’s another global growth story that is easily overlooked: Africa. In 2007 and 2008, southern Africa, the Great Lakes region of Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda, and even the drought-stricken Horn of Africa had GDP growth rates on par with Asia’s two powerhouses.”
“In fact, on a per capita basis, Africans are already richer than Indians, and a dozen African states have higher gross national income per capita than China.”
“More surprising is that much of this growth is driven not by the sale of raw materials, like oil or diamonds, but by a burgeoning domestic market, the largest outside India and China. In the last four years, the surge in private consumption of goods and services has accounted for two thirds of Africa’s GDP growth.”
http://www.newsweek.com/africa-becoming-new-china-and-india-75109
No, I’m sure there’s an explanation…
“Sub-Saharan Africa economic growth of around 5.8% is second only to developing Asia, according to the IMF .”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/halahtouryalai/2013/11/07/marriott-bets-big-on-africa-buying-10k-hotel-rooms-to-become-continents-largest-player/
There is, Swanky Hipster, but it’s not as if either you or Macaca could possibly understand it.
Pumpkin is going to have to start compiling a list of Swanky and Macaca’s greatest hits, everything from Swanky’s “China treats its minorities equally (‘It’s a joke, Pincher’)” to Macaca’s “The stock market is the economy.”
Here’s a thought experiment
The DRC, democratic republic of the Congo, invents its own psychometrics test, which has a bias favoring those of african cultural background. At the same time, scoring high on this test is positively correlated with all kinds of good things, like life-expectancy, income, voting in elections maybe.
Europeans do badly on this test, and no creme de la creme of europeans emerges that overcomes the cultural hurdle in this test. Just bad across the board.
How likely does the above sound to you, Swank, Mugabe, anyone?
It’s not just about GDP spunky…many African countries are more modern than Eastern European countries. More anomalies.
spunky’s greatest hits read like a flat-earther’s guide to reality: Oprah didn’t do anything special with talk shows, Stephen King couldn’t get into any law school, cross burning isn’t racist when Charles Murray does it, comedy doesn’t require smarts, ideas are a dime a dozen in art, etc. Barbados isn’t really a modern country, etc. etc.
‘How likely does the above sound to you, Swank, Mugabe, anyone?’
All of the colonists at Jamestown failed the IQ test that many of the natives would have drawn up.
*all but 60
Like which ones, Swanky Pete? Make the comparison explicit so we can all see how your funky minds works.
Libya, Mauritus, and Seychelles score higher than the Ukraine on HDI. South Africa and Gabon are on par with Moldova.
UN also believes that the aggregate HDI for SSA could rise to around .61 by 2050. Such progress is just more evidence that black Africans can run a modern country.
Suzuki is merely saying there is a chance that Rushton is wrong. He doesn’t explain with one sentence why the possibility of Rushton being wrong implies any probability that Rushton is wrong. And he has no counter-theory. He tries to stir up a mob against Rushton, that’s all, Suzuki must be ashamed of himself.
spunky dismissed the actual facts about so-called “black violence” by a) pretending the facts didn’t exist and b) relying on misleading stats, such as the arrest rate.
‘Blacks and Latinos were nine times as likely as whites to be stopped by the police in New York City in 2009, but, once stopped, were no more likely to be arrested.’
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/13/nyregion/13frisk.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Off cours ”NYtames”
Swanky Hipster writes:
What those stats actually show is that blacks were not unfairly being singled out by law enforcement. Despite being stopped and frisked nine times more often than whites, they were still just as likely to be arrested.
So the cops aren’t targeting these temporary detainees for their race. If they were, we would expect to see much *lower* arrest and weapon possession rates for the minorities among them. Instead, the rates are close to equal, despite the minorities being stopped nine times more frequently.
Do you read and think before you link, Swanky?
‘What those stats actually show is that blacks were not unfairly being singled out by law enforcement
they show the opposite. they would show what you believed they showed if minorities were arrested at higher rates once stopped.
IF the rate for whites is ~1/100 and the rate for blacks is 9/100 (to justify the 9 times more likely…), then if you stopped 900 blacks you’d get 81 arrests. You don’t. You get ~9 (with regard to the gun number), Which is roughly equivalent to 1/100 for whites.
If blacks were being unfairly picked on by being stopped by the police far more frequently for no good reason, then their rates of arrest and weapons’ possession would be much lower than for whites. They aren’t.
You just don’t know how to read what you link, Swanky.
you keep asserting that over and over again.
If the black rate was different, we would see a higher percentage…
I will keep asserting it over and over.
The cops have to stop nine times the number of black youths to get an equal percentage of black arrests. If they stopped fewer black kids, and only stopped black kids, say, five times more frequently than whites, then we would see that arrest rate for blacks skyrocket.
It’s elementary, Doctor Swanky. There’s a lot more criminality in the black population.
if you stop 900 people thinking they have an outsized tendancy to commit crime and therefore are 9 times more likely than whites to be arrested, and you only come away with 9 arrests…the same you’d be expected to come away with if you stopped 900 people from the ‘good behavior’ group…indeed it is likely that your belief is wrong and that you are stopping many people for no good reason.
If you stop 900 people in one group, and 100 in another group, and you still have the same arrest rate, then you’re not unduly picking on the first group. If the cops stopped fewer in that first group by being more sure of what their instincts are telling them, then they’d see the arrest rates in that group rise.
Simple stuff, Swanky. For anyone who has a brain.
‘If you stop 900 people in one group, and 100 in another group, and you still have the same arrest rate, then you’re not unduly picking on the first group.’
Retarded. If you have the same arrest rate, then there’s no real reason to stop the other group more often.
‘If they stopped fewer black kids, and only stopped black kids, say, five times more frequently than whites, then we would see that arrest rate for blacks skyrocket. ‘
It seems like you’re confusing total amount with rate.
No, I just understand arithmetic better than you, Swanky.
If you stop more people in a particular group unnecessarily, then the # of arrests/# of stops for that group will decline. In other words, if you believe the criminal tendencies of each group are approximately the same, and you stop nine times more blacks than whites, you should expect to find a far lower arrest rate for blacks than whites because you’re stopping too many blacks.
The white group is the control. Cops are stopping nine times more blacks than whites, and yet the arrest rate is the same for both groups.
Hence the cops in NYC seem to be pretty good at picking out suspicious-looking blacks and whites from the people they stop. It just so happens that suspicious-looking blacks are nine times greater in number than suspicious-looking whites, which sounds about right to anyone who’s ever glanced at crime stats.
‘ If the cops stopped fewer in that first group by being more sure of what their instincts are telling them, then they’d see the arrest rates in that group rise.’
You’re just assuming they’d still get the same amt of arrests as before.
Take two equal populations, Group A and Group B.
Assume that the vast majority of people in both groups (99.9%) are not likely on any particular night to be surreptitiously committing a crime or illegally carrying a weapon.
Finally, assume neither Group A nor Group B is more likely to commit crimes on any particular night than the other group.
If that’s the case, then Swanky must agree that the more either group is stopped by police, the more the police will have to be let members of that particular group go free of any charges after they are stopped.
Logically, if you stop more people in a group unnecessarily, then you will have let more of them go free of charge.
In other words, if Swanky really believes the shit he peddles here on a daily basis, then he must believe that with the NYC police stopping blacks nine times more frequently than whites, blacks should have an arrest rate nine times lower than whites.
Obviously that’s not happening in NYC.
‘if you believe the criminal tendencies of each group are approximately the same, and you stop nine times more blacks than whites, you should expect to find a far lower arrest rate for blacks than whites because you’re stopping too many blacks.’
No you wouldn’t. You would find that the arrest RATE was the in fact the SAME. If 1/100 blacks commit crimes and 1/100 whites commit crimes, then stopping 900 blacks will yield 9 arrests. You wouldn’t find a “far lower” rate. If the stops were based on real “suspicion,” the arrest rate would be higher.
Stop every person in NYC, Swanky, whether they’re suspicious or not. Will the arrest rate stay the same, go up, or go down?
If you say anything other than “go down”, you’re an idiot.
‘Logically, if you stop more people in a group unnecessarily, then you will have let more of them go free of charge.’
Quantitatively…raw amount, yes. Percentage wise, or RATE, no.
Again if both groups are 1/100 rates and I stop 500 of one group, I will indeed have to let more people of that group go — 495 of them. HOWEVER, the RATES will be the same.
Stop and frisk isn’t random, you dumbass. Read your own NYT’s article. The cops are stopping only suspicious persons.
‘Stop every person in NYC, Swanky, whether they’re suspicious or not. Will the arrest rate stay the same, go up, or go down?
If you say anything other than “go down”, you’re an idiot.’
The rate would stay roughly the same, even though the total amount of arrests would skyrocket. Unless of course the current arrest rate failed to capture criminal tendencies in the population.
If Group A commits crimes 1/100, and group A is 1000 people, when you stop 1000 of them, you will arrest 10. The arrest rate has remained the same even though we have seen a 10x increase in number of arrests….
That’s what I thought You’re an idiot.
From the New York Times’ article, which apparently Swanky, per his usual, didn’t read before linking.
So the New York City’s finest are stopping “suspicious” blacks nine times more frequently than “suspicious” whites, and yet the arrest rate for both groups is the same.
This makes the NYC cops look good. It makes me look good. And it makes Swanky Pete look bad.
I thought arithmetic in word problems was supposed to be Swanky’s strength.
Swanky assumes the cops are no better than random at picking suspicious characters out of a crowd.
I don’t assume too much of cops, but I assume they’re slightly better than random at noticing people who fit the profile for criminal activity, which is usually young males of a certain dress and disposition.
‘Stop and frisk isn’t random, you dumbass. Read your own NYT’s article. The cops are stopping only suspicious persons.’
Do you even know how low of a standard “reasonable suspicion” is? Of course not. As long as a police officer could post hoc offer ANY reason he may have stopped you, he is in the clear.
And the fact that the stops aren’t even tethered to a suspect description but instead a vague category ‘furtive movement,’ proves my point more than yours. You get where you get by assuming it’s actual suspicion and not ‘they are race x therefore automatically more suspicious.’ Lax standard + same rate + vague reasons for stopping having nothing to do a crime that has been committed –> more likely bias.
Who cares if the standard is lax, so long as it’s NOT random?
As long as the standard is even slightly more likely to find a criminal than a completely random standard, then everything in my earlier arguments still applies.
‘Swanky assumes the cops are no better than random at picking suspicious characters out of a crowd.’
With all of your whining about ‘expert opinion’ I’m not sure why you’re surprised. I can buy that, if they are in a situation where bias isn’t a factor (white cop picking out whites) they COULD be decent. I have heard that random DWI checkpoints turn up around the same arrest rates as DWI patrols…
Because you generally don’t have to be an expert to notice that males commit more crimes than females, younger males more crimes than older males, single or pack males more crimes than males with their families, poor males more crimes than middle class males, etc.
These tendencies are so evident, in fact, so built into how most people (black and white, old and young, etc.) see things, that I would trust even a cop to notice them.
‘As long as the standard is even slightly more likely to find a criminal than a completely random standard, then everything in my earlier arguments still applies.’
Not really. Even if we just limit it to ‘suspicious persons,’ then the rate of ‘suspicious persons’ who actually committed a crime being similar across groups still is subject to my arguments.
And once again, the standard, free from bias, may be more likely than random. HOWEVER, this is evidence that heavy bias exists with regard to minorities.
Not if you’re stopping nine times as many people in a group.
‘Because you generally don’t have to be an expert to notice that males commit more crimes than females, younger males more crimes than older males, single or pack males more crimes than males with their families, poor males more crimes than middle class males, etc.’
And we would expect that, if true, those rates would show up in the ‘stopped but arrested’ rate.
When the police CANNOT IDENTIFY the race of the suspect, whites and minorities are stopped at similar rates. For example, white and minority motorists are stopped at similar rates or at comparable rates (depending on the year). Men however, are stopped more than women. Younger people are stopped more than older people. etc.
Stop bluffing, Swanky. You’re no damn good at it.
A study was done showing that when emergency calls are controlled for by the race of the victim, blacks were still far more likely to be accused of a crime. That is, blacks accuse other blacks far more often than whites cause whites.
‘Stop bluffing, Swanky’
Tard.
“A greater percentage of male drivers (9.9%) than female drivers (7.0%) were stopped by police during 2008. White (8.4%), black (8.8%), and Hispanic (9.1%) drivers were stopped by police at similar rates in 2008.”
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=702
It’s not “bluffing,” it’s common sense.
Notice that minorities are more likely to be searched. This is AFTER the Officer ascertains the race.
REGARDLESS. your point about “suspicious persons” is nonsense. The RATE would be HIGHER if the extra stops were justified. Period.
‘blacks were still far more likely to be accused of a crime. That is, blacks accuse other blacks far more often than whites cause whites.’
by all means, link to the study.
A lot of people drive fast, Swanky. Most would never dare think of murdering someone.
Look at the number of female drivers stopped in your link. They are a full 70 percent of the number of males stopped. Do you therefore believe that females also murder at 70 percent the rate of males? They don’t.
So your assumption is flawed from the beginning.
As usual, Swanky, you state the exact opposite of what is the case. The more people you define in a group as “suspicious,” the lower your arrest rate will be. Unless of course the group is stereotyped accurately, in which case you have to increase the number of “suspicious” people you stop just to get the same arrest rate.
So are men. Suspicious, ain’t it?
I’m pretty sure it’s in James Q Wilson’s Crime and Human Nature. Or Heather Mac Donald’s work. Look it up yourself. I already do enough of your home work for you.
‘ Do you therefore believe that females also murder at 70 percent the rate of males? They don’t. ‘
I never said that….
The amount stopped BASED ON BEHAVIOR without the factor that would produce BIAS still led to the trends you discussed. That’s the point.
‘ The more people you define in a group as “suspicious,” the lower your arrest rate will be. Unless of course the group is stereotyped accurately, in which case you have to increase the number of “suspicious” people you stop just to get the same arrest rate.’
This would only be true if the current arrest rate somehow did not indicate the criminal trend in the populations.
If Group A is 1000 total, the criminal prevalence is 1/100, and my current group A suspect pop is 100, doubling that pop to 200 will NOT change the rate of arrests.
‘So are men. Suspicious, ain’t it?’
Notice I left the analysis at the initial stop because yes, differential treatment MAY factor into the decision to search a man’s car versus a woman’s.
‘I’m pretty sure it’s in James Q Wilson’s Crime and Human Nature. Or Heather Mac Donald’s work. Look it up yourself. I already do enough of your home work for you.’
I’m not your RA. Produce what supports you or shutup. Heather MacDonald writes propaganda pieces on behalf of the Manhattan Institute. Wilson was okay.
But the point of a cop stopping people he can see if that it allows him to stereotype accurately. If he can’t see the driver, how can he do that?
No one to my knowledge has ever accused blacks of being dangerous drivers.
Asian drivers? Yes. But not black drivers.
Assuming the cops’ standard for picking out likely criminals is higher than random, sure it will. Because what it means is that you’re now forcing the cops to either pick on white people who aren’t suspicious or allow more suspicious blacks to go by without stopping them.
If Swanky becomes the NYC Chief of Police and demands his forces start frisking whites at the same rate as his cops frisk blacks, one of two things will happen: Either whites will be stopped nine times more, and get arrested less (because the police will start frisking more whites who they don’t think are really suspicious, but who are there to fill a quota) or blacks will be stopped much less and the black arrest rate will go up (because police will only stop the most suspicious-looking blacks).
Nope, I’m not doing your homework. I’ve given you the likely source. Now go find it yourself.
‘But the point of a cop stopping people he can see if that it allows him to stereotype accurately. If he can’t see the driver, how can he do that?’
EXACTLY. And when he CAN’T SEE the drivers, whites and minorities are stopped AT THE SAME RATE. In situations where he CAN SEE the race/identity, the rates are monumentally skewed. thus, it’s quite likely that ‘suspicious behavior’ is not what drives the selection. welcome to the original point I made….
‘Assuming the cops’ standard for picking out likely criminals is higher than random, sure it will….’
This is just longhand for the current arrest rate does not reflect the underlying criminal rate. So tedious…
‘Nope, I’m not doing your homework. I’ve given you the likely source. Now go find it yourself.’
It’s not my homework if you’re the one who introduced the point. You need to support yourself.
At this point I’m just guessing you read some tortured logic piece by MacDonald on this point and never bothered to assess what she’s saying. She usually responds to any and all possibility of bias in the justice system by pointing to the % of minority violent crime suspects versus whites, which is still misleading, because we have data on reported incidence of criminal activity versus arrest rates. Still a huge disparity. Even researchers on HER side have concluded that about 40 percent of the disparity in incarceration cannot be explained by crime.
You might have a point if people complained about black drivers. But they don’t. So you have no point.
There’s no iron law for criminality which says the different races (or genders) have to commit all crimes, from violent felonies to misdemeanors, with the same propensity.
It’s a straightforward logical presentation for why you can’t ignore the denominator (the higher percentage of suspicious blacks stopped) when looking at the numerator (the equal number of arrests among those stopped).
No, I don’t, Monkeyboy.
I already provide more links here than any other commentator. From your responses, I can tell you never read them, anyway. So go find it yourself. I’ve given you the sources.
‘You might have a point if people complained about black drivers. But they don’t. So you have no point.’
I still have a point. When the officer CAN’T make out the racial identity and only has “behavior” to go off of, the stop rates are identical. When the officer can make out the racial identity, the stop rates are skewed.
And the rate for Asians was nearly identical, too. But we all hear about how terrible Asian drivers are…
I never said there was an iron law of criminality. I pointed out that in certain situations the stop rates seem to be about equal, and, in other situations — namely the NYPD example — that does not seem to be true. The only difference is that the officer can see the race of the potential perp.
‘It’s a straightforward logical presentation for why you can’t ignore the denominator (the higher percentage of suspicious blacks stopped) when looking at the numerator (the equal number of arrests among those stopped).’
More nonsense. I’m convinced that you read one of MacDonald’s pieces and are now having trouble reconstructing its byzantine “logic.” “Suspicious” as a category is almost meaningless. Higher percentage of “suspicious” blacks may as well be “higher percentage of blacks stopped because being black makes you appear suspicious.” You don’t seem to understand how low the threshold is, and you are essentially assuming that ‘because they were stopped they must have been suspicious,’ which is nonsense. Hit rates as low as 1% should clue you in on that fact.
‘So go find it yourself. I’ve given you the sources.’
No thanks. If you can’t support yourself and your arguments (not that you ever really do), then that’s on you. I explained the facts that MacDonald never brings up. I also explained that even researchers on her side have admitted that 40-50% of the incarceration disparity is NOT explained by crime.
Swanky Hipster,
But the behavior is not contested. That’s confirmed by the high number of female drivers stopped on the road. But no one claims that tells us anything important about male/female murder rates,
So you have no point. You’ve just changed the subject.
They are terrible drivers. Easily the worst among all the ethnicities I’ve seen drive.
Seeing the race/gender/age/dress of the potential perp is the whole point. Stereotyping is valid. Blacks may not double-park any more than whites, but they sure as hell commit more violent crimes than whites.
So vastly different situations lead to different arrest rates. I wouldn’t expect to see blacks well represented among white-collar criminals, either.
It figures that Swanky would find basic logic and arithmetic byzantine.
The key piece of information is not the arrest rates, but the much higher levels of stopping and frisking blacks in order to get those arrest rates even.
But your logic, the NYPD could continue to add more and more non-suspicious blacks to its policy of stopping and frisking and not se that arrest rate go down. That’s ludicrous.
Even an amateur can immediately grasp which demographics are more likely to be trouble and not waste time with the others. Your stupid pretense is much like our airline policy of stopping and frisking white grandmothers and six year old Mexican kids at the airport before they fly in order to prevent the next 9/11. Compare the arrest rate at the airport to the NYPD arrest rates, and I’m sure you’ll find they are much lower. That’s the final nail in your argument.
I agree one percent is pretty low. But once the local population is aware that a new policy is in effect, they are much less likely to fall victim to it and it’s value is as a deterrent. The fact you still have to stop nine times as many blacks to get the same arrest rate as whites is damning evidence that the cops are right to focus more on minorities. You go fishing where the fish are.
The argument stands. The disproportionately higher rates of black violence is one of the best proven stats in criminal statistics, with evidence in the United States going back nearly two hundred years (See Wilson again). A stupid traffic study doesn’t disprove that. As for the sources, I already educate you enough (Libya is not a SSA country, China mistreats its minorities, Taiwan is a developed country, etc.); you can start to learn how to educate yourself.
Liberals are closeted racists. The hbds understand that there are palatable cognitive differences between communities, disregarding the exceptions. Not really, we want them to be eliminated. The only thing controversial and hateful we want is that they are not committing genocide more as trying to millions of white people who never hurt some conscious and direct with any black person.
It is clear that we are comparing apples with pears. But apples and pears belong to the same food category (for a human and animal perspective). And more, it is statistically more likely than white people to help black people, especially those who deserve, than otherwise.
The liberal ignorance to understand, accept and continue to live normally, the races differ as cognitive ability and that white people, because of their cognitive diversity, produced a lot of creative geniuses, it shall be, on the day are forced to accept that people are cognitively different by racial criteria (on average).
Interestingly, when we speak of these matters to them, they immediately to inquire ” this then mean that we should eliminate them ” ???
The leftist religion prevents psychotic liberals promote genocide against other people in the same way that the Christian religion prevents most of his followers practice crimes.
The same genocide that ” liberal ” are collectively participating (happily) against white people, will be the same when the time of the East Asian as well as all other races. Because they are stupid zombies, by the way, I’ve never seen a smart zombie.
Macaca upthread quotes a long forgotten post made about me by Pumpkin and writes:
Good God, are you still obsessing about that? That post must’ve been made about a month ago. Let it go, night watchman. Let it go.
I don’t give a shit about it. Why should you? Unless you’re just so quivery about your status that you’re even given to online dick-measuring contests with anonymous posters.
“population” selects more for intelligence I guess. The more people, the more competition. It not only selects for high intelligence, but also other important traits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_proper_by_population
It seems like there is a correlation with high population and IQ of a city. The correlation is not perfect, of course. But it is also not perfect in cold climate theory. One can also combine both…
Alcoholic Wisdom,
I don’t think it’s a truism. This must be much more to it than that. Just because hominids seem to have been selected for more intelligence throughout most of their evolutionary history doesn’t mean that occasional backtracking in intelligence among people didn’t happen with some regularity in the right circumstances.
Look at Homo floresiensis or pygmies or, much more broadly, the recent history of mankind. Does it look like we’re selecting for more intelligence now?
I think we are selecting for intelligence now. The “information accumulation” of civilizations is a good IQ test. Education is a good IQ test, selecting smarter people…sifting people according to cognitive qualities.
This will effect mate selection, so the best males(smarter and fitter) will be favored.
The average might suffer, I don’t know, but high levels of intelligence will continue rising in high populations. Like Brahmins in India..
High population environment is more complex to thrive than cold climates I believe…And historically, it seems to make sense, although cold climate theory makes sense only at the moment.
Ashkenazim followed the most populous trader cities in history, therefore also continiuosly being object to high competition. It was not the cold climate, I belive.
It cannot be mutation rate, as it is too short time to create high intelligence/complexity in such a short time.
But educated people around the world do not have as many children as those without education. And the “information accumulation” of civilizations is only good if the people accumulating its knowledge breed.
I agree about the Ashkenazim, but they’re a recent and small case, and they’re slowly disappearing as a distinctive genetic caste.
The average is what matters. If the average sinks, then that tells you the environment is not selecting for intelligence.
I don’t know much about India’s demographics, but the Brahmins are currently less than five percent of India’s population, and I suspect they’ve grown more slowly over the last century than other castes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_urban_community_sizes
historical city populations. Seems to work for every era.
Yeah, but that doesn’t tell you about the growth of their average IQ. Los Angeles, for example, is certainly dumber on average than it was fifty years ago.
ross douthat has an enormous head
Swanky Hipster writes above:
I probably shouldn’t take anything for granted with Swanky’s limited grasp of geography, economics, and history. I already know that knowledge I usually associate with a college grad is entirely absent in Swanky’s brain housing group. But damn if that boy doesn’t still disappoint no matter how low I set the bar.
Swanky and I were discussing sub-Saharan Africa, so naturally the idiot thinks of Libya, an Arab country in North Africa.
The Seychelles is another silly example. It’s a small island in the Indian Ocean which was not populated until French and Africans began simultaneously filling it up in the 19th century. I can’t find anything about the DNA admixture of the population on the Seychelles, but looking at the photos on Google, they’re clearly admixed to an even greater degree than African-Americans. A couple of its recent most important recent political leaders (France-Albert René, James Mancham) look as white as any Europeans. And its president today looks whiter than Obama.
Swanky should do his argument a favor and stop relying on those with high levels of European ancestry to do the work he claims SSAs can do alone.
As for its HDI, the Seychelles is not any different than Barbados. Only 90,000 people live on it and the island relies heavily on tourism for its livelihood.
Swanky’s third example is Gabon. I suppose I should be grateful that he finally managed to pick a genuine SSA country. One not only located in the Africa south of the Sahara, but which also has SSAs living in it.
Unfortunately for the Swankster, Gabon doesn’t live up to the hype he claimed for it. Wikipedia has it listed 112th on the HDI list, well below #83 Ukraine.
If the UN has since adjusted its HDI ratings, it shouldn’t be a surprise why Ukraine is now lower than Gabon. Perhaps even the dunderheaded Swanky has heard the news about Ukraine lately.
Africa can progress because *every* country can progress when smart people in other countries are leading the show. Africa just can’t catch up. Nor will it for the foreseeable future.
Oh, and an other thing: Gabon’s economy is dominated by oil.
I suppose Gabon’s contribution to this discussion is that if one is stuck with a dumb population, go with beach resorts or oil to subsidize your living standards.
‘Swanky and I were discussing sub-Saharan Africa, so naturally the idiot thinks of Libya, an Arab country in North Africa.’
Here is what I said:
‘It’s not just about GDP spunky…many African countries are more modern than Eastern European countries. More anomalies.’
‘Swanky should do his argument a favor and stop relying on those with high levels of European ancestry to do the work he claims SSAs can do alone.’
The % of European ancestry, by current science, has no discernible effect on IQ. The average IQ of Seychelles is apparently 86…just 6 points off of Kenya. Ukraine average IQ 97. Yet they are less modern. More anomalies.
Most of your tirade just mixes and matches. Gabon and South Africa are pretty close to Moldova, which is in Eastern Europe.
‘Africa just can’t catch up. Nor will it for the foreseeable future.’
If its HDI is projected to increase by a large amount, that’s evidence that it is and will “catch up.” lol, do you even realize you’re lying? indeed, the only people who would be impressed by your scribbles are non-college grads.
Who cares what you said midway through the discussion, Swanky. The original discussion was about SSA. Your sloppy writing and thinking didn’t change our topic halfway through the debate.
Libya is a Middle East Arab country, not a SSA country. Your average Libyan would be gravely insulted to be confused with a black African. Why would we be comparing Middle East Caucasoids to East European Caucasoids?
We wouldn’t be having this discussion if we agreed racial ancestry has no effect on IQ.
An admixed population with high levels of white ancestry is clearly not a SSA country. Here are photos of the last two presidents of the Seychelles: James Mancham and France-Alpert René. Do they look black to you?
What are you going to do next, Swanky? Cite the scientific accomplishments of white Africans as proof sub-Saharan Africans have what it takes to succeed in modern science?
Yeah, there are anomalies. Too bad you’re not finding any.
86 is still much higher than anywhere else in SSA, and I can assign that higher IQ to the higher level of white admixture in the population.
Now prove me wrong.
So, in other words, take a small SSA country, fill it with a shitload of oil revenue, and it will get pretty close to the quality of life in the worst Eastern European country.
I wish all my enemies had your brains, Swanky. Life would be so much easier.
‘Who cares what you said midway through the discussion, Swanky. ‘
lol. You rejoined with a point about GDP, to which I countered it wasn’t everything BECAUSE there were several African countries on par with EE. Like I said, you don’t get meaning.
‘Yeah, there are anomalies. Too bad you’re not finding any.’
Except the Caribbean countries. Except the countries with lower IQ yet more modernization than EE countries with higher IQ, which decimates any point you had about African countries not being able to modernize because of IQ. Except the forecasted increase in HDI. Except the rapid increase in HDI.
Yes. You must not realize when you are lying.
‘I wish all my enemies had your brains, Swanky. Life would be so much easier.’
Ignorance is bliss, as you demonstrate.
Lol, indeed. I bet you do a lot of chuckling at yourself, Swanky.
We’ve been talking about SSA and those with SSA ancestry (Barbados, Bermuda, etc.) for the last two days, doofus. Libya is not a SSA country. End of story.
But since this is your new tactic, why don’t you ascribe the pyramids of Giza to the grand accomplishments of sub-Saharan Africans? Or the Roman ruins in North Africa? They’re certainly a several steps up from the Ishango Bone.
A wealthy beach resort with the population of a large American town is not a modern country. It’s just as easily explained as the dumb, wealthy Arab nations sitting on top of oil. They got rich through luck, not endeavor and brains. There’s no model for the rest of Africa, other than to hope that they, too, are sitting on some piece of real estate attractive enough to find a constant stream of non-black tourists.
Where’s the forecast in HDI increases? Or are you now assigning yourself victories you have yet to argue?
‘We’ve been talking about SSA and those with SSA ancestry (Barbados, Bermuda, etc.) for the last two days, doofus. Libya is not a SSA country. End of story.’
Yes, and dismissing SS-Africa’s GDP growth as evidence of modernization is wrong. “End of Story.”
‘Where’s the forecast in HDI increases? Or are you now assigning yourself victories you have yet to argue?’
‘By 2050, aggregate HDI could rise 52% in Sub-Saharan Africa (from 0.402 to 0.612)’
http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/reports/14/hdr2013_en_complete.pdf
‘After languishing at the back of the pack throughout the 1980s and 90s, sub-Saharan Africa was second only to south Asia in terms of annual average HDI growth in the 2000s (1.47% v 1.6%) – and outstripped the Arab states (1.07%), east Asia (1.43%), Europe and central Asia (0.77%), and Latin America (0.74%).’
http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/datablog/2013/mar/14/un-human-development-index-2013-data
Swanky writes,
No, and I explained why.
Your presumption about economic growth is as stupid as arguing that because a pygmy baby grows twice as fast as a Bantu teenager, that he will inevitably catch up in height.
When you have nothing, just getting a steady paycheck dramatically increases your earnings and general welfare. That doesn’t mean that you’ll own the business someday.
Great, Swanky, so in thirty-five years, the aggregate level of HDI in SSA will *almost* be at the level of today’s Nicaragua or Honduras.
Oh happy days ! Hahahaha !
‘No, and I explained why.’
You didn’t ‘explain why.’ You argued that because there was nowhere to go but up, the countries with the most ‘up’ to go would see high growth rates. To which I responded that it wasn’t just GDP growth that matters.
‘Great, Swanky, so in thirty-five years, the aggregate level of HDI in SSA will *almost* be at the level of today’s Nicaragua or Honduras.
Oh happy days ! Hahahaha !’
Higher than India. South Africa, if it keeps up with the same HDI growth, will grow another .05 by ~ 2040, bringing it to .7, which is ‘High Human Development.’
Exclaim all you want. There’s evidence that black Africans in Africa can and will run modern countries.
Swanky,
But current GDP growth rates are as good as anything you have.
And by way of proxy I explained why they still weren’t good enough: Economic Growth and Human Biodiversity – a link you apparently didn’t read, thus confirming my earlier point that you aren’t deserving of direct links to source material.
India’s a pathetically low standard. There are many impressive Indian individuals, and India’s large population – which is nearly twice the size of SSA’s population – guarantees it will be a major player in the global economy and geopolitics.
But no one informed thinks of India as a place where the average citizen is well off. Or of India as a modern country.
I don’t know if you’ve looked at the countries listed among those with “High Human Development”, but those which aren’t speeding through the stage on their way to some place better aren’t paragons of modernity.
Even some of those countries listed at the top of the HDI table for “Very High Human Development” (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Bahrain) are only there because of oil. Even they don’t qualify as sustainable modern countries. They simply have the money to acquire all of modernity’s trappings.
You’ve offered nothing but vain predictions that some day black Africans will be as wealthy and modern as most Central Americans already are today.
‘But current GDP growth rates are as good as anything you have.’
Save the forecasted HDI and the rapid HDI growth, which also serve as evidence of rapid modernization.
Regarding the links you vomit, I am already familiar with the bald tires that hereditarians roll on in these discussions. If you look at those little links, they actually demonstrate my point. HDI and GDP are important. India had GDP growth, but its HDI growth between 2000-2012 was 1.5%. Contrast that with SSA, which has 7 of the top 10 worldwide HDI growth countries.
In 2005, the Chinese government randomly selected children from all over China and measured their IQs as part of an Iodine deficiency study. The provinces showed marked differences in IQ. As you can expect, the underdeveloped rural areas scored far lower (and this is a decade after universal salt iodization). So, it’s a feedback loop. First, there is GDP growth (and oft times the beginning model is export-led), which spurs development, which leads to “smarter” people, which encourages more development in different sectors. So the accelerating curve is probably typical of development. SSA and China/East Asia are on different parts of that curve.
‘But no one informed thinks of India as a place where the average citizen is well off. Or of India as a modern country.’
They have work to do, but no one believes that India will never be modern, or that India is incapable of becoming modern.
Also of note, India’s self-calculated HDI is around .2 higher than the UN’s calculated HDI. lol.
‘I don’t know if you’ve looked at the countries listed among those with “High Human Development”’
You’re confusing the apex of modernity with “modernity.” Again. A developing country can be a modern country. China is both.
‘You’ve offered nothing but vain predictions that some day black Africans will be as wealthy and modern as most Central Americans already are today.’
I only needed to show evidence supporting the fact that black Africans can run or will be able to run a modern country. You keep moving the goal posts.
Forecasts are garbage. But even giving your argument credit for something which hasn’t happened yet, you still can’t show that SSAs have the ability to do anything other than watch their hand-to-mouth prosperity edge a little higher as other people in other lands give them more modern tools they could never produce themselves.
Yeah, Swanky Hipster, you’re an expert at books you never read and links you never open.
I never said they weren’t important. But they aren’t evidence of modernity.
SSA started from a lower base than India. So naturally they had more room for growth.
Not even Richard Lynn disputes that many parts of Africa suffer from nutritional deficiencies which lower IQ. But China’s people were much smarter than SSAs before any growth ever took place in China, so your feedback loop is tendentiously exaggerated.
It will be a mixed story. Some regions will do well; others will consistently lag.
India’s level of corruption is much higher than Taiwan’s, and its level of development much lower – and so, like you, the Indians have much more reason to lie because they have more more to hide.
China is not a modern country yet. In fact their leaders are quite open in describing their own deficiencies.
One of the reasons the Chinese are so impressive is that they don’t bullshit themselves in the same way Indians would or blacks do. Or the same way you do.
The goalposts remain the same. Economic growth is not the same as being a modern country, otherwise every country in the fifties would be a modern country today.
‘Forecasts are garbage. But even giving your argument credit for something which hasn’t happened yet, you still can’t show that SSAs have the ability to do anything other than watch their hand-to-mouth prosperity edge a little higher as other people in other lands give them more modern tools they could never produce themselves.’
More moving the goal posts. You said there was no evidence that black Africans could run a modern country. Now you want to qualify it to infinity.
‘Yeah, Swanky Hipster, you’re an expert at books you never read and links you never open.’
Neither of us are experts, spunky. I have the temerity to admit as much. You don’t.
‘I never said they weren’t important. But they aren’t evidence of modernity.’
Both put together are indeed evidence of modernity or progress toward modernity.
‘Not even Richard Lynn disputes that many parts of Africa suffer from nutritional deficiencies which lower IQ. But China’s people were much smarter than SSAs before any growth ever took place in China, so your feedback loop is tendentiously exaggerated.’
That link wasn’t just about nutritional deficiencies. It’s about development. Regardless, you are just assuming China’s people were much smarter than SSA’s before “any growth” took place in China. What do you mean by “any growth?” Even in 1950, China’s GDP per capita was ahead of SSA by a large amount. So China started ahead. China’s IQ in 1950 was ~85. China’s GDP per capita in 1950 was ~614 dollars…adjusted for inflation, that’s around 6,000 dollars. If we look at countries nowadays who average 6,000 dollars GDP per capita, we find a similar average IQ…which supports the causal link running from wealth to IQ.
‘China is not a modern country yet. ‘
The link only states that China is still a developing country, which is consistent with what I said: a country can be modern and developing. It’d be on the left side of the ‘modern country’ bell curve.
‘The goalposts remain the same. Economic growth is not the same as being a modern country, otherwise every country in the fifties would be a modern country today.’
I never said economic growth is the same….
I said that HDI and economic growth can give us insight into future development. SSA is projected to increase markedly in both areas, further SSA has already increased markedly in both areas, which suggests that they are indeed capable of “modernizing.”
black Africa has unique problems.
1. excepting the southernmost part, it was never successfully colonized, and there was little mixing of colonists and indigenes.
2. its countries aren’t organic wholes, but the result of expedient carve up by colonial powers.
3. this is not a problem in the New World. there has been a lot of mixing and though Honduras and Paraguay have almost no pure Europeans left, they did at one time. the rest of Latin America still retains a significant Europeans minority, and in Argentina a majority.
further as long as the dependency ratio remains high there is no hope for SSA or India or even the Middle East to approximate the developed world.
the dependecy ratio is what Rushton referred to as “litter size”.
“All of the colonists at Jamestown failed the IQ test that many of the natives would have drawn up.”
Swank, you missed the part about the test being correclated with all kinds of useful things, income, life-expectancy etc. and in modern society please, not some past fantasy.
‘ and in modern society please’
Oh, isn’t that a culturally loaded term. Modern society as in a western styled economy and a government on some sliding scale of democracy?
It isn’t some ‘past fantasy.’ How to thrive like the Native Americans would have “correlated” with “all kinds of useful things” in Jamestown: survival, income as measured by resources gained, etc.
If it is, then it’s a culture that outsiders to the West desperately want.
Even Jared Diamond was honest enough to point out that New Guineans wanted “cargo” and wondered why white men seemed to have all of it and they had none of it.
Swanky, you just pointed out that the economic growth rate of SSA was x percent, and that was fantastic. So you do understand what counts. By modern society I mean a technologically advanced society, or indeed a society aspiring to be that.
Okay, so in other words a western-styled democracy of one kind or another…? In that case, current IQ tests do accurately measure the ability of an individual to thrive in that particular type of society and culture.
The barriers that developing countries face, in many cases, are cultural. Some people believe that China’s economic growth can be traced back to its ‘one-child’ policy in many ways, because it reduced the fertility rate from something like 3 to 1.6. Now that they may have passed ‘peak workers,’ China has relaxed the policy. If you look at fertility in SSA, it’s very high. Something like 4.94.
I think WMC said something above about the dependency ratio. Unfortunately, I haven’t really read much about the connection between it and development.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3182557/#SD1
Also, for HBD deniers, all your straws have been burnt to ash, nothing for you to clutch.
http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/tax-spending/why-does-the-son-rise/
http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/13/debunked-and-well-refuted
Another piece here, for those who think The Bell Curve is “debunked” (LOL!)
Check the comments, you’ll see a moron trying to argue against bell curve, he is thoroughly destroyed haha
Bell curve is like a geographic map, a abstraction of reality. Bell curve is a simplification of human cognitive diversity. Meritocracy hierarchical structures was build to favor certain cognitive castes than others. System distribute the money as it want. Ilusion to believe in meritocracy. University teacher (relatively far in these days to be the super smartest ones) earn less than ”celebitches”, meritocracy???
12 million american dolars by ”work” to stupid and luberal ”celeb” and 100 mil american dolars to university teachers??
No fair competition there. You create a ”crazy race” and the faster will be the winner. Then, you put an elephant, cheetah and a chicken to compete.William Blake already talk about it.
Iq>130= giftedness = treaty of tordesillas. Think about it. =)
‘But the behavior is not contested. That’s confirmed by the high number of female drivers stopped on the road. But no one claims that tells us anything important about male/female murder rates,
So you have no point. You’ve just changed the subject.’
We aren’t talking about murder rates. We are talking about whether police unfairly single out certain individuals over others. Proof positive you have read one of MacDonald’s pieces, because YOU are trying to constantly redirect to the ‘murder rate.’
‘They are terrible drivers. Easily the worst among all the ethnicities I’ve seen drive.’
Nice anecdote. According to data, they are stopped at an almost identical rate.
‘Seeing the race/gender/age/dress of the potential perp is the whole point. Stereotyping is valid. Blacks may not double-park any more than whites, but they sure as hell commit more violent crimes than whites.
So vastly different situations lead to different arrest rates. I wouldn’t expect to see blacks well represented among white-collar criminals, either.’
The data from the NYPD indicates otherwise. Blacks commit ‘more violent crimes’ than whites using statistics that themselves arise from differential encounter rates.
‘Even an amateur can immediately grasp which demographics are more likely to be trouble and not waste time with the others. Your stupid pretense is much like our airline policy of stopping and frisking white grandmothers and six year old Mexican kids at the airport before they fly in order to prevent the next 9/11. Compare the arrest rate at the airport to the NYPD arrest rates, and I’m sure you’ll find they are much lower. That’s the final nail in your argument.’
The arrest rate once stopped is similar, actually. .079%. Oops.
http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/story?id=6276841
‘It figures that Swanky would find basic logic and arithmetic byzantine.
The key piece of information is not the arrest rates, but the much higher levels of stopping and frisking blacks in order to get those arrest rates even.
But your logic, the NYPD could continue to add more and more non-suspicious blacks to its policy of stopping and frisking and not se that arrest rate go down. That’s ludicrous.’
“Logic” in quotes because MacDonald’s arguments are a course in shyster tactics. Again, you assume ‘suspicious’ means something, or that there’s an appreciable difference between ‘suspicious’ and ‘non-supsicious.’ That is because you do not understand how threadbare the standard is. You can shift from side to side out of boredom and be ‘suspicious’ to a cop.
‘I agree one percent is pretty low. But once the local population is aware that a new policy is in effect, they are much less likely to fall victim to it and it’s value is as a deterrent. The fact you still have to stop nine times as many blacks to get the same arrest rate as whites is damning evidence that the cops are right to focus more on minorities. You go fishing where the fish are.’
More nonsense. a) your first blurb reveals that you know almost nothing about the reality of ‘stop-and-frisk,’ and b) again, basic math, if you are stopping far more people and getting the same arrest rate, the extra stops are unnecessary.
‘The argument stands. The disproportionately higher rates of black violence is one of the best proven stats in criminal statistics, with evidence in the United States going back nearly two hundred years (See Wilson again). A stupid traffic study doesn’t disprove that. As for the sources, I already educate you enough (Libya is not a SSA country, China mistreats its minorities, Taiwan is a developed country, etc.); you can start to learn how to educate yourself.’
Once again, at least 40% of the “disproportionately higher” incarceration rate is NOT EXPLAINED by any difference in criminal activity. And what’s at issue is whether the crime rate is black qua black or black qua poor. SES and poverty are the main predictors of crime.
Blah blah blah, I don’t care about what excuses you can make for not supporting yourself. You haven’t, so your point has no support.
*.79%
REPOSTED:
The whole point of stopping and frisking, and arresting people for minor violations like a weapon’s charge, is to deter more serious crimes.
“Broken Windows” is not ultimately about preventing windows from being broken. It’s about preventing more serious crimes. And since the murder rate is easily the best-kept statistic in the criminal justice system, and the most serious of crimes, it makes sense to focus on it.
Some information doesn’t rise about the anecdotal.
Asians are one of the least-studied minority groups in America. They’re small as a percent of the U.S. population, and therefore their results in many studies are statistically invalid. And they have often have the indignity of being grouped with other ethnicities very dissimilar from them (Pacific Islanders, for example. Or South Asians and East Asians.)
When I talk about bad drivers, I’m talking about East Asians. I’m not talking about Pacific Islanders or South Asians. You have no reliable stats for those drivers that trump my anecdotes.
No, they don’t. See the self-reporting by ethnicity.
Your article doesn’t address my point. Instead, it shows a program I didn’t even realize TSA was implementing, but which is very similar to the NYPD stop-and-frisk program.
Apparently, TSA is also in the business of checking out suspicious people, but unlike the NYPD, they aren’t very good at it. The New York cops are much more efficient at detecting suspicious behavior than the TSA, with well over 50 percent more effectiveness.
My point had nothing to do with that, however. I just said that your pretense was the same as random checks at airports that aren’t based on demographics or suspicious behavior.
It doesn’t have to be appreciable. There just has to be a statistically significant difference. And if you’re stopping nine times as many suspicious people to get the same arrest rate, then that’s statistically significant.
‘The whole point of stopping and frisking, and arresting people for minor violations like a weapon’s charge, is to deter more serious crimes.’
And it doesn’t work. Increasing patrols in a given area does not deter crime significantly. A good relationship between the community and its police deters crime. That does not arise from random patrols, random stops, etc. etc. Even “hot-spot” policing works only modestly. And it certainly isn’t worth the (still low) hit rate.
‘When I talk about bad drivers, I’m talking about East Asians. I’m not talking about Pacific Islanders or South Asians. You have no reliable stats for those drivers that trump my anecdotes.’
Not directly, but the overall average for Asians is slightly lower, (.6%). So if east Asians were stopped at a markedly higher rate than other groups, then Pacific Islanders would have to be pretty great at driving to offset the average.
‘No, they don’t. See the self-reporting by ethnicity.’
Even if you assume the races lie at differential rates — and the differential rates of “lying” aren’t so high, something like 10-20% — it still wouldn’t explain the difference in arrest and incarceration rate.
‘ The New York cops are much more efficient at detecting suspicious behavior than the TSA, with well over 50 percent more effectiveness.’
No, the difference probably arises from the fact that the TSA sample was a national sample. The national crime rate is lower than a large metropolitan area’s crime rate.
‘I just said that your pretense was the same as random checks at airports that aren’t based on demographics or suspicious behavior.’
The “random” checks are included as “stops,” where you receive a pat-down.
‘There just has to be a statistically significant difference.’
Still wrong. You are speaking like someone who doesn’t understand a) the sheer amount of laws in the US, and b) the ease with which a cop can arrest you with impunity. The rate at which non-suspicious individuals and suspicious individuals (as judged by police) are likely to have “committed” a crime, is probably nearly identical, because reasonable suspicion is also forward-looking. You can stop an individual if there’s an indication — almost any indication — that they may commit a crime in the near future.
“Behavioral assessment” is extremely inaccurate. Like I said, I have heard that DWI random checkpoints turn up similar arrest rates as DWI patrols.
Swankisonest…
About…?
Swanky writes:
I don’t know if it works or not, and neither do you. The matter is controversial and abstruse. But for the purposes of this discussion it doesn’t matter. All that matters is that the architects of the policy thought it might work, and so they implemented it for the purpose of policing small crimes to reduce more serious crimes.
I suspect it worked somewhat. Anytime law and order is unapologetically maintained on small matters, it probably has downstream effects. But crime rates fell all over the country for the period in question, and not just in those municipalities who applied the “broken windows” theory to their policing.
Or being primarily urbanites, and not the kind of people given to cruising, they drive a lot less than whites who are primarily suburbanites and spend more time in their car than most other people.
Your previous criticism of not understanding rates, which was inappropriately directed at me, is here much more aptly directed at yourself.
We’re comparing *rates* of suspicious persons stopped who are eventually arrested. The NYPD is much better at detecting suspicious people (among both black and white suspects) who are actually breaking the law than is TSA.
It doesn’t matter what the crime rate is at the airport compared to NYC if the enforcement mechanism puts the onus of selecting suspects on the local law enforcement authorities. TSA is not forced to pick more suspicious persons just to fill a quota. They’re just not as good at the task as the NYPD, for whatever reason.
Look it’s either one or the other. The TSA either stops someone for acting suspiciously or they stop them randomly. It can’t do both on the same person.
It doesn’t matter. As long as they are keeping accurate stats, then unnecessary stops of blacks will still be reflected in lower arrest rates.
But the TSA stat shows that’s not correct.
I agree that detailed behavioral assessments are probably a waste of time in most cases. In any case, most cops aren’t the best candidates to implement an effective behavioral assessment on the fly in the street.
But demographic profiling is accurate, and it can be done in a snap without much in the way of details. Young non-Asian minority males, ages 15 to 35, walking either singly or in packs, ought to be the ones most likely to be searched. Why? Because they’re the ones committing the lion’s share of serious crimes.
‘I suspect it worked somewhat.’
That’s nice.
‘Your previous criticism of not understanding rates, which was inappropriately directed at me, is here much more aptly directed at yourself.’
No, it isn’t. Your main beef here is that you believe the underlying arrest rate does not reflect the true criminality rate because you believe that the police have an ability to accurately pick out truly suspicious individuals.
‘But the TSA stat shows that’s not correct.’
Yes, it does…
Again, national stats include several populations (rural, smaller cities) with lower crime rates than those found in a major metro area like New York. It’s consistent with what I’m saying.
‘But demographic profiling is accurate’
If the rates are the same, then you’re wrong. It isn’t any more accurate.
Sometimes the rates for minorities are IN FACT lower:
“Empirical evidence from Los Angeles obtained as the result of a 2001 federal consent decree between the U.S. Department of Justice and the Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”) that sought to remedy past racial profiling and other discriminatory practices against minorities tells a similar story. During the period from July 2003 to June 2004, “after controlling for violent and property crime rates in specific LAPD reporting districts, as well as a range of other variables,” the researchers found that:
Per 10,000 residents, the Black stop rate was 3,400 stops higher than the White stop rate, and the Hispanic stop rate was almost 360 stops higher.
Relative to stopped Whites, stopped Blacks were 127 percent more likely and stopped Hispanics were 43 percent more likely to be frisked.
Relative to stopped Whites, stopped Blacks were 76 percent more likely and stopped Hispanics were 16 percent more likely to be searched.
Relative to stopped Whites, stopped Blacks were 29 percent more likely and stopped Hispanics were 32 percent more likely to be arrested.
Frisked Blacks were 42.3 percent less likely to be found with a weapon than frisked Whites, and frisked Hispanics were 31.8 percent less likely to have a weapon than frisked Whites.
Consensual searches of Blacks were 37 percent less likely to uncover weapons, 23.7 percent less likely to uncover drugs, and 25.4 percent less likely to uncover any other type of contraband than consensual searches of Whites.
Consensual searches of Hispanics were 32.8 percent less likely to uncover weapons, 34.3 percent less likely to uncover drugs, and 12.3 percent less likely to uncover any other type of contraband than consensual searches of Whites.37″
Where’s your excuse here, slick?
It’s less an ability to pick out suspicious individuals than an ability to recognize what groups are more likely to commit crimes.
If you’re going to claim that crime is unpredictable, and that blacks and whites commit crime at equal rates, then you can’t turn around and claim that you’re sure cities (which have more minorities) have higher crimes rates than rural areas (which have more whites) or among those travelers who visit airports. You have no justification for it.
If you want to be ludicrous and publicly declaim your belief that old Asian women are just as likely to commit crimes as young black males, be my guest. I shan’t stop you.
‘If you’re going to claim that crime is unpredictable, and that blacks and whites commit crime at equal rates’
I never said that they commit crime at equal rates. I just said that if you stop 9x as many people and come up with the same arrest rate, then that is an indication that you don’t need to stop that many people and that the extra stops are likely the result of bias.
‘claim that you’re sure cities (which have more minorities) have higher crimes rates than rural areas (which have more whites) ‘
Higher population density, higher pecuniary gain, etc. Even if you had all-white populations, you’d still probably find a higher crime rate in a city versus a rural area.
‘If you want to be ludicrous and publicly declaim your belief that old Asian women are just as likely to commit crimes as young black males, be my guest. I shan’t stop you.’
If we stopped 100 old Asian ladies and we found 1/100 crimes, then we stopped 900 young black males and found 1/100….indeed, that may be what we’d have to conclude. Of course, police probably stop young white males and young black males.
*commit crime at equal rates in all times and in all places.
Until you fess up to the exact degree of black versus white crime rates, that’s impossible to determine.
(And you won’t fess up to it because it destroys your entire argument.)
Is that what the crime statistics from the cities show? That it makes no difference whether you live in Detroit or Portland? No difference if you live in Gary, Indiana or Springfield, Missouri? No difference if you live in Oakland, California or across the Bay in San Francisco, California?
Good luck selling that idea.
Good God, I didn’t think you were serious about your idea, but it looks like you are.
‘Until you fess up to the exact degree of black versus white crime rates, that’s impossible to determine.
(And you won’t fess up to it because it destroys your entire argument.)’
I know that, in New York, the lack of disparity in rates suggests a high degree of bias. Further, even if the rates are different in a given population, if the amount stopped exceeds that difference in rates, you still have a bias problem.
‘Is that what the crime statistics from the cities show? That it makes no difference whether you live in Detroit or Portland? No difference if you live in Gary, Indiana or Springfield, Missouri? No difference if you live in Oakland, California or across the Bay in San Francisco, California?
Good luck selling that idea.’
That’s not what I said. Cities simply have higher crime than rural areas. Maybe there are differences among them for various reasons, but that general trend would hold even if you had all whites. So, a national sample would be lower than a metropolitan city’s sample.
‘Good God, I didn’t think you were serious about your idea, but it looks like you are.’
I am. Now, I highly doubt that if we searched 100 Asian ladies, we’d find the same arrest rate as if we searched 100 of anyone else. But if we did, then — barring something like noise — then there really wouldn’t be much else to conclude.
I already explained why this wasn’t true. You prefer your just-so story.
But the point is, if you want to avoid crime, are you better staying away from population density or staying away from black?
And the answer is, you’re much, much, much better off staying away from black.
The homicide rates vary considerably across U.S. cities, but one feature is nearly universal among those with high rates – they’re heavily black. Detroit, New Orleans, St Louis, Baltimore, Newark, Oakland, Stockton, Kansas City, Philadelphia, and Cleveland – of those cities, only Stockton is below 24 percent black.
On the other side of the equation, no U.S. city in the top ten for the lowest homicide rates has blacks representing 10 percent of its population. Well-known cities like Portland, Seattle, Austin, and San Diego are often heavily Hispanicized, but they’re never heavily black. Austin is perhaps the most black at 8 percent.
Detroit has a murder rate *fifteen times* Portland murder rate. So the largest city in Oregon is certainly much closer to the rural ideal you claim than it is to the typical U.S. city with heavily mixed populations.
‘I already explained why this wasn’t true. You prefer your just-so story.’
You just tried to repeat and mix-match MacDonald talking points — unconvincingly. A similar arrest rate between two groups of people suggests a similar underlying criminal incidence rate. Slice it however you want…if you want to talk about ‘suspicious’ populations, if the ‘suspicious’ population for one race is actually higher than another race’s, then you’d still find different rates.
Funny, you never responded to the lower incidence in the LAPD data.
And here we are with the redirect to apparent ‘rates,’ themselves based on statistics that may be faulty — as discussed above.
PLUS, you can have differential crime rates AND bias, as I also pointed out.
Individuals more likely to believe common items are dangerous weapons when a black’s face is shown to them beforehand.
http://www.unc.edu/~bkpayne/publications/Payne%2006.pdf
The existence of considerable racial bias in policing is a reality.
The LAPD stuff is just more of your selective editing of the crime data. You want to continue to pretend that blacks don’t commit more crimes and therefore are not deserving of more attention from law enforcement.
And they’d be right to make the association.
And that bias is based on well documented facts that police ought to be more biased racially. They’d do a better job by focusing their attention on some areas and the types of people who live in them than on others.
‘The LAPD stuff is just more of your selective editing of the crime data. You want to continue to pretend that blacks don’t commit more crimes and therefore are not deserving of more attention from law enforcement.’
I have never made any of those claims. I have said that there is evidence of substantial bias in law enforcement. And as I already said, you can have differential rates AND substantial bias. If you stop x more people and get the same arrest rate, that’s bias. If you stop 9x as many people but only have 2x the arrest rate, that’s also bias.
‘And they’d be right to make the association.’
Not really, because they would be incorrect in their perception, i.e. biased, i.e. inaccurate because of NOTHING OBJECTIVE.
‘And that bias is based on well documented facts that police ought to be more biased racially’
If they are far exceeding the actual propensity, then they are past the point where they ‘ought’ to be anything. Beyond objective stats, the prevalence of crime among a certain community or race shouldn’t matter, by constitutional right. But hucksters like you don’t mind ceding rights because you (incorrectly) believe that the consequences will only flow to those “bad” minorities.
It’s at the root of your arguments whether you explicitly make them or not.
But differential crime stats are objective. When I say that blacks commit a far greater share of crimes than their numbers suggest, they should, that’s a valid stereotype and useful information for the police to know and use.
Therefore, even if a cop pulls over an equal number of white female and black male drivers he’s still justified in searching more of the cars belonging to the black male drivers. His perception that those drivers are more likely to have a deadly unlicensed weapon in the car or be violating their parole is not biased.
‘When I say that blacks commit a far greater share of crimes than their numbers suggest, they should, that’s a valid stereotype and useful information for the police to know and use.’
Even if that’s true, if the amount stopped far exceeds the actual proportional arrest rate — 9x as many stopped for 2x as much crime — there is still a lot of UNWARRANTED bias, no matter which way you look at it.
And as a matter of law you are flat wrong about searches/seizures.
‘It’s at the root of your arguments whether you explicitly make them or not.’
No it isn’t. It’s actually completely unnecessary.
Swanky writes above:
Yes, that’s right. I carefully pointed out that being successful at modernity wasn’t about borrowing stuff that other people invented and then waiting around for them to invent new things so you could borrow more.
Modernity doesn’t sit still. And being successful at it means you live in a society which constantly pushes the edge. It’s possible everyone in Africa will have a cell phone in the year 2100. That will hardly be much of a consolation if the rest of us are in flying cars.
East Asia has closed that gap with Europeans. People in other parts of the world have not.
What you’ve admitted is that you don’t care to read the evidence provided to you. And you have no idea what I’m an expert at.
It’s a race they will never catch up in.
South Korea was as poor as Ghana or Kenya in the 1950s. China was still as poor as many SSA countries in 1970 It doesn’t take long to catch up if you have the right population to catch up with. SSA, however, does not.
That’s what makes your point about SSA getting to the level of Central America or India in thirty or forty years such a joke. Why does it take that long? Especially since they’ve had several decades to figure it out already.
There was plenty of evidence that was the case decades before China took off. From the way they performed in school to the performance of the Overseas Chinese to the historic accomplishment of the China’s civilization.
That’s why Richard Nixon noticed it in the seventies even when China was still at the level of SSA.
And by “any” growth, I meant any takeoff from the subsistence level that most of China was at until the end of the 1970s.
For various reasons, China was a chaotic shithole for about a century until the Communists unified it, and then not much better than a shithole until Mao died in 1976.
You’re full of shit. See my links above. Or look at this link, which shows China below Congo, the Ivory Coast. Kenya, Ghana and not much better off than Nigeria.
Angus Maddison has China in 1950 at almost half the average of Africa, and still significantly below Africa in 1973.
Yet look at both of them today. HBD predicted that. Your anti-HBD theory did not.
China has impressive pockets of modernity, but it also still has huge chasms of poverty and backwardness throughout the country.
‘East Asia has closed that gap with Europeans. People in other parts of the world have not.’
No it hasn’t.
‘What you’ve admitted is that you don’t care to read the evidence provided to you. And you have no idea what I’m an expert at.’
Yes I do — nothing you talk about on here.
‘South Korea was as poor as Ghana or Kenya in the 1950s. China was still as poor as many SSA countries in 1970 ‘
Those were countries under colonial rule you dildo. They weren’t at their floor.
‘There was plenty of evidence that was the case decades before China took off.’
An editorial about the virtues of Chinese immigrants written in 1875 is hardly evidence re: IQ in the 1950’s or below. The evidence against what you say is the Great Divergence itself.
‘r look at this link, which shows China below Congo, the Ivory Coast. Kenya, Ghana and not much better off than Nigeria.’
Countries still under colonial rule. Next.
‘China has impressive pockets of modernity, but it also still has huge chasms of poverty and backwardness throughout the country.’
Yes, which is why it’s still developing. But it’s modern. It’s just on the far left of the bell curve.
Yes it has.
No, you don’t, Swank. Hell, I’ve been teaching you many wonderful wonderful things, like that Libya isn’t located in sub-Saharan Africa. Thank your lucky stars you can catch up on your basic education and at no cost to the public taxpayer.
Make up your mind what you want to argue, Swanky. You’re all over the place.
And all the countries I mentioned were close “to the floor” in that most people in them existed at bare subsistence level. The per capita income statistics capture that. Yet you claimed that China was clearly ahead of Africa. That’s bullshit.
You’re also a little shaky on your Asian history. South Korea and China were also both under the sway of colonists until the middle of the twentieth century. So was Taiwan.
And Barbados and the Seychelles were also colonial outposts. That doesn’t stop you from touting their success today.
You didn’t read it closely The editorial was written by the great Francis Galton himself. He clearly had biological traits in mind when he wrote the piece, and he had no reason to praise the Chinese and disparage Africans, since he is neither of them.
‘Hell, I’ve been teaching you many wonderful wonderful things, like that Libya isn’t located in sub-Saharan Africa.’
I never said it was….you just misunderstood my comment.
‘Make up your mind what you want to argue, Swanky. You’re all over the place.’
No I’m not. If you want to discuss black-run SSA, you can’t include the GDP of these countries while they were under colonial rule.
‘Yet you claimed that China was clearly ahead of Africa’
Ghana, after colonial rule, in 1970 had a GDP-per of 413$. It was behind China in 1950.
‘South Korea and China were also both under the sway of colonists until the middle of the twentieth century. So was Taiwan.’
China wasn’t under actual colonial rule. Korea was essentially handed off from the Japanese to the Americans.
Regardless, these countries had been developed to a greater extent for various reasons under colonial rule.
‘The editorial was written by the great Francis Galton himself’
…
And?
Did he test any of them?
Yeah, silly me. I thought we were discussing the performance of black Africa. Then all of a sudden you mentioned Libya.
Wealth is wealth. If you eat well enough, then your excuses for why SSA lacked in nutrition and other indicators of well being don’t fly if the Chinese were doing even more poorly.
Instead, it appears the white colonists were taking care of black Africa better than the Chinese were taking care of other Chinese.
Ghana wasn’t behind China in 1950. (This just goes to show that giving you links to source material is a waste of time.)
And if the British were still in charge of Ghana today, the locals would be better off yet.
There’s a lesson in there, Swanky, but I don’t expect you to learn it.
I chose my words carefully. I said “under the sway.” Korea was a full-fledged colony of Japan for more than three decades and under Japan’s thumb since the begging of the Meiji. China was essentially not in control of its full territory for several decades.
You want to have it both ways. Colonization excuses the early income stats showing China lagging behind SSA and yet somehow also shows that China and Korea were better provided for by their colonists.
Well, which is it?
That’s a bald-faced lie. The entire point of showing you the per capita income stats for those countries in 1950 and 1970 is to show relative economic development. And by that reckoning, China was in no better shape than many parts of Africa in 1950 or 1970.
If China or Korea had been better developed, we should see it reflected in those early per capita income stats. And we don’t.
Galton lived in Sub-Saharan Africa for at least a couple of years. And he was an intelligent man who understood the implications of Darwin’s theory better than you understand it.
You ever watch sports, swanky? Do you feel the need to test whether blacks are better at competitive athletics before you deduce they are in fact better at sports?
‘Yeah, silly me. I thought we were discussing the performance of black Africa. Then all of a sudden you mentioned Libya.’
More lies. You brought up GDP, I explained why that wasn’t the only factor to consider.
‘Ghana wasn’t behind China in 1950…’
It actually goes to show you don’t even read what is typed to you. Ghana AFTER COLONIAL RULE…
‘I chose my words carefully. I said “under the sway.”’
Yes, I realize that you tried to pull yet another fast one. Per usual.
‘Korea was a full-fledged colony of Japan for more than three decades and under Japan’s thumb since the begging of the Meiji. China was essentially not in control of its full territory for several decades.
You want to have it both ways. Colonization excuses the early income stats showing China lagging behind SSA and yet somehow also shows that China and Korea were better provided for by their colonists.’
No. Korea was handed off from the Japanese to the Americans. Not only that, but colonization was not -equal- in all times and in all places. South Korea, even in 1960, had 600 years under its belt as a nation of some type. Africa, on the other hand, was haphazardly carved up.
There is a difference between nation/state building and economic recovery.
You continually try to equate phenomenons that are not equal. The fact is that SSA started from a much lower developmental place.
‘Galton lived in Sub-Saharan Africa for at least a couple of years. And he was an intelligent man who understood the implications of Darwin’s theory better than you understand it.
You ever watch sports, swanky? Do you feel the need to test whether blacks are better at competitive athletics before you deduce they are in fact better at sports?’
Yes….which is what should be done with any proposition. When Jews were new to America, they dominated the basketball and were said to be superior athletes. I understand HBDers like to make any excuse for lazy thinking, though.
Just admit it, Swanky. You thought Libya was filled with black Africans.
That qualification was only made after you first said this: “Even in 1950, China’s GDP per capita was ahead of SSA by a large amount.”
Notice the lack of any qualification. Strange given how much of sub-Saharan Africa was still under colonial rule in 1950.
You only *added* the qualification after I called you on your dumb bluff.
So? How does this changed the fact Korea was still a colony?
You’re going to have to make up your mind whether colonization helped or hurt various countries because you’re dancing all over the place.
What difference does it make if the two places were almost equally poor in 1950, and modernization is so easy to achieve that you just know SSA will follow the example of the Barbados and do it forthwith?
The Hermit Kingdom wasn’t modern, Swishy Swanky.
Besides you’re changing the subject again. You first claimed that only a lack of wealth and development prevented SSA from following East Asia’s example. Then when I pointed out that much of East Asia was as poor as SSA in 1950, you decided the important difference between the two was the history of civilization in East Asia.
Of course the next time I mention the lack of civilization in SSA, you’ll quickly mention that notched-up dildo you think represents the mathematical musings of ancient black Africans.
You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth, Swanky, and it ain’t a pretty sight.
I’m just following your argument, boss. You’re the one who told me that all SSA needed to modernize was the kind of positive wealth feedback loop that eliminated IQ-crushing poverty that Asia had already eliminated. Now you’ve suddenly decided it’s much more complicated than that.
Not true. I think they were overrepresented in one sport: Boxing. That’s it.
But go ahead and name all the great Jewish baseball players of the early twentieth century, Swank. Hank Greenberg and Sandy Koufax do not count.
‘Just admit it, Swanky. You thought Libya was filled with black Africans.’
Just admit it, spunky, you don’t understand context.
‘You only *added* the qualification after I called you on your dumb bluff.’
Because I didn’t think you would misunderstand the difference.
‘So? How does this changed the fact Korea was still a colony?
You’re going to have to make up your mind whether colonization helped or hurt various countries because you’re dancing all over the place.’
Colonization hurt all countries, but it hurt some more than others. It’s only ‘dancing all over the place’ if you falsely equate everything. SSA has some unique problems.
‘What difference does it make if the two places were almost equally poor in 1950, and modernization is so easy to achieve that you just know SSA will follow the example of the Barbados and do it forthwith?’
Nation and state building versus just economic recovery. I already said this.
‘ You first claimed that only a lack of wealth and development prevented SSA from following East Asia’s example. Then when I pointed out that much of East Asia was as poor as SSA in 1950, you decided the important difference between the two was the history of civilization in East Asia.’
Harder to develop when you have no nation, common language, or history of strong governance, which itself meant that there was significant human capital waiting to get tapped but at the ready.
‘You’re the one who told me that all SSA needed to modernize was the kind of positive wealth feedback loop that eliminated IQ-crushing poverty that Asia had already eliminated. Now you’ve suddenly decided it’s much more complicated than that.’
Not really. “Development” encapsulates the steps I mentioned. So yes, these countries may make their own histories, but it’s not as they please. They must work with what they have been given in the modern age — and SSA has not been given much, if anything at all.
‘But go ahead and name all the great Jewish baseball players of the early twentieth century’
‘During the interwar period, public recognition of Jewish basketball led both Jews and non-Jews to describe basketball as a uniquely ‘Jewish game.’ The ‘Jewish game’ existed not simply because of the prevalence of Jewish players, but also because Jews were considered inherently good at basketball. ‘
http://gradworks.umi.com/33/38/3338249.html
Oh I understand context alright, goofball. And it supported my inference. The discussion was about SSA.
Since European colonists still completely, utterly dominated nearly all of Africa in 1950, you had no point. I think there were only two or three SSA countries who were independent in 1950, and one of them was South Africa.
You simply thought it was a safe bet to claim that China was ahead of SSA “by a large amount” because even you’re bigoted enough to believe that blacks have always been behind everyone else in civilizational terms and that this must have been reflected in economic output.
When you discovered it wasn’t, you quickly changed your tune about how the lack of wealth hampered Africa relative to China.
Name them.
But of course the colonists were very helpful in building up state infrastructure. Or did you think Barbados and the Seychelles did that all on their own?
True enough, except for the part about “strong governance.” Strong political leaders in government were, and are, common in Africa; effective political leaders and modernizers, on the other hand, have been impossible to find.
Look at Singapore. It’s a recent invention. The city was never a state, but a British outpost on the Malay peninsula until the 1960s, when like much of Africa it had to deal with sudden independence (after a temporary union with Malaysia).
The population in the city didn’t identify as Singaporeans. They identified as various ethnic groups. There were race riots. Most of the population was Chinese, but they too did not identify as Singaporeans, and they had to make accommodations to the minority Malays, especially given that their large neighbor to the north was majority Malay and at the best of times suspicious of Singapore’s Chinese leaders.
Yet with all those problems, look at Singapore today. It obviously doesn’t take long to build a state and modernize when you have the skills to do so. But it’s an impossible bitch to do when you have no native talent for it.
But basketball was not a popular sport in the early twentieth century. Tennis, golf, boxing, college football, and especially baseball were all far more popular. Even your source calls it a “marginal sport.”
So the fact Jews were associated with basketball in its early years says nothing about Jewish athletic talent than, say, whites dominating polo or swimming does today.
‘Oh I understand context alright, goofball. And it supported my inference. The discussion was about SSA.’
Yes, and you tried to feed me a line about how GDP growth isn’t relevant. You were wrong. Again.
‘When you discovered it wasn’t, you quickly changed your tune about how the lack of wealth hampered Africa relative to China.’
China was ahead of most SSA countries in 1950, though. Ethiopia is behind China. Chad isn’t even on the list. Angola isn’t on the list. The countries you did bring up were artificially propped up by colonial rule.
‘Name them.’
I already did.
‘But of course the colonists were very helpful in building up state infrastructure. Or did you think Barbados and the Seychelles did that all on their own?’
State infrastructure != nation and state building. Infrastructure is more about raw economics.
‘Strong political leaders in government were, and are, common in Africa; effective political leaders and modernizers, on the other hand, have been impossible to find.’
You can’t turn countries around with the exceptional 1/million. First of all, many Africans were kept out of high government positions during colonial rule. Second of all, unlike Korea, which had a history of rigorous examination prior to civil service and had the human capital at the ready for governance, Africa had no such history or experience.
Singapore had the benefit of a large, homogeneous Chinese population that immigrated there in the 19th century. That Singapore still had major problems despite being pretty homogeneous should clue you in on how severe the situation would be if a continent were haphazardly carved up.
‘So the fact Jews were associated with basketball in its early years says nothing about Jewish athletic talent than, say, whites dominating polo or swimming does today.’
The source doesn’t say basketball was a marginal sport when the Jews were playing basketball. It says that Jewish basketball prowess transformed basketball from a marginal sport into a popular sport, spunky.
Swanky, cultural barriers bla bla, barriers that take generations to even discover as barriers..
Soccer was invented in England I think about two centuries ago. Africans have no problems internalizing the rules and tactics of the game. No one says about scoring goals that it’s a western ideal, and that you could imagine other “goals” that are just as valid as those biased goals we take fore granted.
Stop moving the goal-post in other words.
I’m not moving the goal posts. As far as I know, blacks don’t dominate soccer, but NEVERTHELESS…
As part of African culture — let’s say Kenya — blacks are encouraged to excel at running. They get very good at sprinting. Suddenly, here comes a game that relies a lot on sprinting.
Boom. Blacks are good at the game.
Of course, western culture compared to African culture looks more like Golf vs. 100m dash. And — shocking — there aren’t many black golfers. The game relies on skills that the cultures in Africa don’t encourage or much recognize, and accordingly, when you bring fine sprinters to the golf course, it turns out that they underperform. Oh wait. It turns out that when you bring sprinters to the golf course, force them to be caddies, tell them that they will never ever play, change your mind and have a huge golf-course dividing fight over whether they can play, allow them to play, but subject them to a severe handicap of +200, lessen the handicap after about 8 or 9 games to +100 (or hey, maybe it’s nearly zero lol), and then assess their ‘innate skill level’ over about 2 or 3 games….your results won’t be too shocking.
in fact, an SD lower would be pretty impressive…
Few blacks become professional golfers because it’s an expensive sport. There are membership fees, green fees, equipment and balls to purchase, cart rentals, certain required apparel (baggy pants not among them), lessons, etc.
Most blacks are priced out of the game. Even the post-WW2 rise of muni golf courses did not change that very much. It’s not a coincidence that Tiger Woods’ dad was in the military, giving the young Tiger the right to use cheap military golf courses his father has access to.
And famous black golfers before Tiger almost all started off as caddies – Lee Elder, Clifford Sifford, Pete Brown, etc. That was about the only way they could get on the course.
Ok, the american black man is excused due to slavery, I don’t know until when, but gradually less excused presumably.
“The game relies on skills that the cultures in Africa don’t encourage or much recognize”
This is the point, step one is to see your own culture and its limitations, then it’s on you to transcend it. Europeans do that all the time, when it’s needed, and just for fun when it’s not needed.
It’s not just slavery. The period of time between the civil war and the civil rights act was also pretty terrible for blacks.
‘This is the point, step one is to see your own culture and its limitations, then it’s on you to transcend it. Europeans do that all the time, when it’s needed, and just for fun when it’s not needed.’
Europeans do not ‘do that all the time.’ Regardless, I’m not saying all cultures are equal anyway. I’m only saying that culture is far more powerful than HBDers give it credit for.
I understand if people out in the villages can’t or don’t transcend their own culture to improve their situation. But their should be an african avantgarde that does, in other words, the african bell curve should have an elite hump. I have a strong feeling that even if most of europe were a backwards place, some stratum of europeans would quite easily break loose from that and quickly adapt to whatever it takes to improve their lives. If not in one generation, certainly in a few. Take the jews, many of them were poor refugees to america, but only a generation later they had picked it up.
Stop being dishonest, you’re saying that culture is extremely powerful and that genetic predisposition is weak.
You may be partially correct, because it is part of the idea that (most) people are like rocks, which are unconsciously taken by events happening in their social cycles, as the stones are taken unconsciously by water and air.
But a large stone will be tougher than a small stone.
‘ I have a strong feeling that even if most of europe were a backwards place, some stratum of europeans would quite easily break loose from that and quickly adapt to whatever it takes to improve their lives. If not in one generation, certainly in a few. ‘
You mean like the “quick” bounceback that occurred after Rome fell?
Yes a larger stone will be tougher to carry away. However the difference only becomes meaningful between a boulder and a pebble. The amount of raw genetic variation between humans looks more like what you’d find between pebbles.
Hugh’s points are valid. Recent work on medieval incomes in Europe, for example, is revealing that the inhabitants’ incomes and living standards were significantly higher than previously assumed. Here’s an example. Modern economic growth, dramatic as it was, didn’t just come out of nowhere.
Hugh is also correct that we should have seen by now an African cognitive elite break away from the cultural and social cycle that anti-HBDers presume prevent most blacks from high intellectual achievement.
” You mean like the “quick” bounceback that occurred after Rome fell? ”
You can’t compare Europe after Rome with today’s Africa, Why? Because europe after Rome didn’t hav e a neighbor continent to show an example. Nor did it have access to all the knowledge of the world via the internet. I can give starving, actually starving, african countries as pass. My country Denmark sufferered starvation every decade at least in those days and all the way into the 18-hundreds. Bad weather was tough until technological advances made it into a nuisance rather than an actual threat to existance.
‘Recent work on medieval incomes’
That paper starts off in the middle of the high middle age, 1270. Of course, Rome fell in 476. Those GDP figures were about 794 years in the making.
According to this chart, West Europe GDP per capita in 2000 dollars was around 400$ in 1000AD.
http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/classes/econ355/choi/rankh.htm
‘Why? Because europe after Rome didn’t hav e a neighbor continent to show an example. ‘
Most of the people were in formerly Roman provinces. They knew about Roman history. Why didn’t they ‘transcend’ their culture and use the lessons of Rome in less than a few centuries?
Swanky,
My link was just one example of an ever-growing body of literature about incomes in medieval Europe. They weren’t as bad off as previously assumed.
Yes, that’s Angus Maddison’s work. It’s been superseded by a growing body of literature. That’s why I said “recent work.”
Perhaps because economic growth was previously a function of conquest and stability, not productivity.
Hugh’s point about modern time being different from today is still valid. No one in the world began to anticipate ever-increasing economic bounties (apart from conquest and stability) until after 1800. That’s why Romans and ancient Chinese didn’t write science fiction and other futuristic romances.
‘My link was just one example of an ever-growing body of literature about incomes in medieval Europe. They weren’t as bad off as previously assumed.’
I’m unsure if anyone assumed Europe was “bad off” in the high middle ages. Common sense suggests that chronological proximity to the Renaissance indicates that the populous was probably fairly “well off.” Here, we have a time period — 1270 — that is 794 years, the better part of a millennium, past the dawn of the dark age and close to the Renaissance.
‘Perhaps because economic growth was previously a function of conquest and stability, not productivity.’
Doubtful. The Roman empire’s economy grew because of trade and productivity, not “conquest.” The empire reached its greatest extent three centuries before collapse, but the economy continued doing well long after.
‘That’s why Romans and ancient Chinese didn’t write science fiction and other futuristic romances.’
Pretty subjective judgment call. A lot of the old myths and entertainment had fantastical elements one could describe as “sci-fi.”
Swanky writes:
Well, you earlier cited Angus Maddison’s work. What does he show to be the case for Europe for the years 1 and 1000? His work is being heavily criticized for many of its assumptions in that era.
Myths are backward-looking. Sci-fi anticipates what the future will look, and how different it will be in its details from the present. The genre only became consistently popular after new technologies in the Industrial Revolution began pushing the frontier on economic growth.
Even the religious eschatologies, like the Last Judgment. are built on the final resolution of past myths, with man re-entering the Gates of Eden.
The year 1 would be at ascendancy of the Roman Empire, but also in the provinces far from the capital. The fact that it took Western Europe 500 years to get back to even that level supports my point.
‘Sci-fi anticipates what the future will look’
Lucien wrote True History during the Roman Empire, and the work featured space travel/aliens/etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_History
No, you don’t understand. Maddison’s work doesn’t claim it took Western Europe 500 years to get back to that point. It claims Western Europe never left that point.
Maddison’s work assumes that before 1500 a farmer is a farmer is a farmer, with slight adjustments for agricultural productivity based on population stats. He therefore doesn’t assume that Rome was wealthier per capita than later medieval Europe. He assumes it just had more people, but that per capita productivity in Europe was pretty much the same before the late medieval period. He’s almost certainly wrong.
I haven’t read the book, so I can’t be sure, but the plot sounds like a parody of Greek myths and Herodotus’ history. Lucien doesn’t seem to be saying anything about a very different future or the growth and change of technology, which is what all science fiction ultimately comes down to.
In any case, sci-fi as a genre only became common when economic growth and technological changes became ever present facts of life.
‘Maddison’s work doesn’t claim it took Western Europe 500 years to get back to that point. It claims Western Europe never left that point.’
Wrong. From 1 to some unspecified point before Roman collapse, it rose, and from that point to 1000, it fell. 400 was the number he used for “basic subsistence.” He used the same number for SSA. So, by that measure, by the time of 1000, Europe and SSA were about equal. If you want to argue that it was “around 400” the entire time from collapse to 1000, fine…it wasn’t growing, either.
‘ but the plot sounds like a parody of Greek myths and Herodotus’ history.’
It’s almost certainly a satire. Nevertheless, many sci-fi authors consider it to be at least partially a work of science fiction. Like I said, it’s a pretty subjective judgment call.
of course PM can’t tell the difference between lies and facts and may be ignored entirely.
as i mentioned above most of SSA was never colonized. after Angola and Mozambique fell the Portuguese left. the revolutions were by and for the indigenes. the same goes for India and French Indochina.
contrast that with Latin America where the early 19th c wars of independence were fought by and for the European colonists. imagine if Quechua speakers had thrown out the Spanish in Bolivia and Peru.
Africa was coming from a much lower level of culture and population density than China or India. no written history, no literature of any kind, and no nation-states only former colonies. there were no cities to speak of in SSA prior to colonization.
it’s apples and pears.
Vietnam and Indonesia and all of SE Asia have the overseas Chinese. SSA has a few scattered Indians and Lebanese.
the advantage of colonization for development is the connections cultural and material the colonists have with Europe. look how big Banco Santander is in Latin America. look how Carlos Slim and Mo Ibrahim have made their fortunes within Latin America and SSA.
Maddison makes no such implication. There’s no rise or fall. You’re just misreading his data or in your typical fashion making some inference which isn’t supported by it.
Maddison simply assumes that farmers everywhere before 1500, from Africa to Europe to Asia, earned at least $400 per capita in value. He then assumes, based on some methodology using population density, that western Asia had an additional $100 to $200 per capita in value.
But as I told you earlier, Maddison’s work is not considered of much value before 1800.
‘Maddison makes no such implication. There’s no rise or fall. You’re just misreading his data or in your typical fashion making some inference which isn’t supported by it.’
“In Maddison (1998a), pp. 25, 37–38, it was assumed that European per capita income levels in the
first century were similar to those in China. Goldsmith (1984) provided a comprehensive assessment of
economic performance for the Roman Empire as a whole, and also provided a temporal link, suggesting that Roman levels were about two fifths of Gregory King’s estimate of English income for 1688.
The West Asian and North African parts of the Roman Empire were at least as prosperous
and urbanised as the European component, which warrants the assumption of similar levels of
income there.
Between the first century and the year 1000, there was a collapse in living standards in Western
Europe. Urbanisation ratios provide the strongest evidence that the year 1000 was a nadir. The urban
ratio of Roman Europe was around 5 per cent in the first century. This compares with zero in the year
1000, when there were only 4 towns with more than 10 000 population (see Maddison, 1998a,
p. 35”
http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/other_books/appendix_B.pdf
And regardless, the link you provided started at 1270. That is almost 800 years after Rome’s fall.
Swanky writes above:
It isn’t relevant to modernization. Almost the entire developing world has grown economically from 1950 to the present day. But outside of East Asia, it didn’t help most regions converge with the West and become modern nations.
No, it wasn’t. Even in 1970, when Africans were struggling with independence, that wasn’t true.
Strangely enough, Ethiopia is the only SSA country which was not a European colony (despite some attempts by the Italians), had frequent connect with superior civilizations before the European age of discovery, and had something of a civilization(s) itself – things which in your theory of the world ought to have given it a leg up economically on the rest of SSA. It even had a modernizing leader early in the twentieth century.
Yet Ethiopia was desperately poor compared to those SSA countries the white colonists took an active interest in.
But colonialism was the dominant fact of life in SSA in 1950, numbnuts. A nation built by colonialism is still a nation.
Besides, Chad and Angola were also both colonies in 1950. Perhaps you anticipate that both were poorer than the British-run colonies of Kenya and Ghana. Well, maybe. But they still might have been wealthier than China.
In either case, make up your mind, Do you want to include colonies in the discussion or not? Or do you just want to include the SSA places that were not as wealthy as China?
The colonialists frequently left both a lot of state and physical infrastructure behind. There’s not much point to being a colonist if you don’t invest in the economic infrastructure, with rails, ports, building, roads, etc.
The colonialists required locals to help run things and to do the work whites could not do. So even if they had no official power, they had plenty of opportunity to see how things were competently run and to learn the work associated with modernization. Didn’t seem to help.
Schools we’re introduced by the white missionaries, too, Swanky. Many African leaders in the independence era attended them. They also went overseas to attend schools there Didn’t seem to help.
Doesn’t make them a state, Swanky. In fact, the Chinese were immigrating from one of the worst-run places in the world. The late Qing dynasty was not a paragon of governing excellence.
Singapore had major problems for about a decade. After that it was on a well-oiled track to success. Africa, on the other hand, hasn’t had a good decade in forever.
The point is that your own source acknowledges that Jewish preponderance in the sport was only possible because it was marginal. After it ceased to be a marginal sport, Jews ceased to be found on the hard courts in the same high numbers.
But no worries, Swanky. They can still easily be found in the NBA front office and on the list of owners for NBA franchises.
‘It isn’t relevant to modernization. ‘
It’s relevant in the presence of high HDI growth.
‘No, it wasn’t. Even in 1970, when Africans were struggling with independence, that wasn’t true.’
Africans are still struggling with independence. Almost every single SSA country, within decades of independence, erupted into one civil war or another because the underlying state/nation structure was simply not there.
So the point is that China emerged from its civil war (let’s just assume that they still didn’t have entire common history and culture before then) in 1950. The SSA countries, after their wars, are/were at a lower level.
‘Singapore had major problems for about a decade. After that it was on a well-oiled track to success. Africa, on the other hand, hasn’t had a good decade in forever.’
Its problems were far different than those faced by SSA. East Asia started off ahead, even at its nadir.
‘The point is that your own source acknowledges that Jewish preponderance in the sport was only possible because it was marginal. After it ceased to be a marginal sport, Jews ceased to be found on the hard courts in the same high numbers.’
The source said no such thing. It said that Jewish skill transformed the game.
Incidentally, the only mistake was to assume the chart didn’t adjust for inflation.
They both grow. So what? The presence of growth and fine HDI stats is not the presence of modernization or even the capability for modernization. Otherwise Saudi Arabia is a modern country.
They erupted because Africans didn’t know how to manage a modern state. They still don’t.
And if Africans are still struggling with independence fifty years after most of them became independent, then that is strong evidence for the HBDer claim that its problems are internal and related to the nature of its population. People without competence for modern living will continue to struggle long after every else has figured the game out.
The problems were not that different.
Unlike China, Singapore’s per capita growth was ahead of SSA. It probably had double to triple the income of a country like Ghana in 1965 and quintuple that for China. But it still had no state, and it was thrown into chaos immediately after independence. But unlike Africa, Singapore had a population that could take advantage of the Western training of its leaders. It didn’t lower itself to the baser instincts of its people.
Yeah, into one which other people wanted to play, whereupon Jewish players were no longer notable.
Name a famous Jewish basketball player, noted for his play and not his coaching or management skills. I can think of Dolph Schayes. That’s it.
‘They both grow. So what? The presence of growth and fine HDI stats is not the presence of modernization or even the capability for modernization. Otherwise Saudi Arabia is a modern country.’
Growing HDI and GDP are leading indicators of ‘modernization’…
‘They erupted because Africans didn’t know how to manage a modern state. They still don’t.’
No disagreement there. Although, the disagreement does come from “they still don’t.” Judging by the growth in the already mentioned stats, it seems like Africans are learning.
‘And if Africans are still struggling with independence fifty years after most of them became independent, then that is strong evidence for the HBDer claim that its problems are internal and related to the nature of its population. ‘
Yes because 50 years is how long it takes to build a nation, form a cohesive identity, etc. Everyone else in the world gets centuries to accomplish these goals, but Africa gets 50 years.
‘ But it still had no state, and it was thrown into chaos immediately after independence’
Small area, fairly homogenous population. heavily interventionist government, tax-haven/laundered money, heavy FDI recruitment. Singapore likes to tout itself as “diverse,” but it really isn’t.
‘Yeah, into one which other people wanted to play, whereupon Jewish players were no longer notable.’
Ossie Schectman scored the first basket in pro basketball. Regardless…jewish people moved out of the ghetto and accordingly, found many other avenues beyond basketball for successful lives. Less jews playing the urban game, less jews in pro basketball.
No, top marks for per capita income and HDI are leading indicators for modernization. Not “growing” but grown.
But even they aren’t foolproof. Look at your favorite examples of the African-controlled beach resorts.
Centuries?
France and Germany were still heavily engaged in the midst of nation-building until quite recently, and they’re as developed as they come.
Besides, latecomers have several advantages. They don’t have to reinvent the wheel. They have numerous examples before them of various kinds of states, and which work best in what circumstances.
Singapore has over five million people in that “small area.” That’s much, much larger than many of the so-called positive black examples you’ve given me, including Barbados, the Seychelles, Gabon, and Bermuda. In fact, Singapore is considerably larger than all four of those places put together. And it’s also comparable in size to some of the populations of European countries which liberals like to hold up as examples for America to follow: Denmark, Norway, Finland, Iceland.
One quarter of Singapore’s population is not Chinese. It had race riots throughout the sixties. And the general neighborhood in SE Asia was not much friendlier to Chinese in the 1960s than, say, Arabs are to Jews today. There were anti-Chinese programs in Indonesia and Malaysia throughout the decade. Even today, Singapore has to walk a fine line in its diplomacy when dealing with its neighbors and in ASEAN because many of its regional neighbors still dislike the small city-state for being so successful when they are not.
Singapore’s government is heavily interventionist, but they balance that nicely with low levels of taxation and very effective government. And you’ll have to explain what’s wrong with recruiting FDI.
Never heard of him.
Sure. But given your premise that Jewish overrepresentation was suppose to represent superior Jewish athletic ability, what has that got to do with anything? Jews were not the black athletes of the 1920s. They were not that visible in the most popular sports.
And there’s many Jews still in basketball. They just don’t play.
‘No, top marks for per capita income and HDI are leading indicators for modernization. Not “growing” but grown.’
Modernization is the process of becoming more modern. Modernized is the state of being modern. So…GDP and HDI are leading indicators for modernization.
‘France and Germany were still heavily engaged in the midst of nation-building until quite recently, and they’re as developed as they come.’
Oh please. France had developed a strong national identity by around 1400, even though the Kingdom of France began in the 1000’s.
Germany had a strong national identity by around 1850, but of course, the people had a common culture from the Holy Roman Empire.
‘One quarter of Singapore’s population is not Chinese’
Lol, slice it any way you want to, they are not ethnically diverse. There’s nothing wrong with heavily recruiting FDI. It’s great when you can get investors. Africa, with its instability, for various reasons, has had a difficult time finding investors.
‘Never heard of him.’
But I named him.
‘But given your premise that Jewish overrepresentation was suppose to represent superior Jewish athletic ability, what has that got to do with anything? ‘
That attributing dominance in X or Y sport because of “innate superiority” ignores other far more important factors.
Swanky,
Yes, they’re leading indicators. But not because they’re “growing,” since everyone in the modern world grows.
You didn’t read the book review I linked, did you?
France’s national identity was not set, it was not a “unified cultural monolith, but rather ‘a vast encyclopedia of micro-civilizations,’ each with its own long history, intricate belief systems and singular customs,” and “Robb corrects this misconception by showing how, even as modern developments like democracy and the steam engine transformed France from “a land of ancient tribal divisions” into a centralized nation-state, a wealth of regional particularities persisted in ‘disparate, concurrent spheres.'”
The point is that until recently they weren’t nations in the way we think of them today, and they had to engage in often brutal efforts at nation-building to become nations. They were also already wealthy by world standards before they ever engaged in these nation-building efforts, so it’s dubious to imply that Africa’s problems are due to its lack of coherent nations.
As diverse as America. The city-state even has a robust immigrant population.
The Africans have had all kinds of money thrown at them on a regular basis. Not just FDI, but foreign aid. They just don’t have the slightest clue what to do with it.
The Chinese, for example, are heavily investing in SSA and they’re pretty ruthless in extracting the best terms.
REPOSTED:
Yes, they’re leading indicators. But not because they’re “growing,” since everyone in the modern world grows.
You didn’t read the book review I linked, did you?
France’s national identity was not set, it was not a “unified cultural monolith, but rather ‘a vast encyclopedia of micro-civilizations,’ each with its own long history, intricate belief systems and singular customs,” and “Robb corrects this misconception by showing how, even as modern developments like democracy and the steam engine transformed France from “a land of ancient tribal divisions” into a centralized nation-state, a wealth of regional particularities persisted in ‘disparate, concurrent spheres.'”
The point is that until recently they weren’t nations in the way we think of them today, and they had to engage in often brutal efforts at nation-building to become nations. They were also already wealthy by world standards before they ever engaged in these nation-building efforts, so it’s dubious to imply that Africa’s problems are due to its lack of coherent nations.
As diverse as America. The city-state even has a robust immigrant population.
The Africans have had all kinds of money thrown at them on a regular basis. Not just FDI, but foreign aid. They just don’t have the slightest clue what to do with it.
The Chinese, for example, are heavily investing in SSA and they’re pretty ruthless in extracting the best terms.
If he wasn’t a famous player, who cares? He’s a trivia question, not proof that non-Jews thought Jews were great at basketball.
If someone were to ask me to name a famous Jewish baseball player, and I said “Sandy Koufax,” nobody even remotely familiar with the history of the American sport would fail to recognize the name.
And if I were attributing white athletic superiority by their overrepresentation in golf or polo, then you might have a point. But since blacks are dominant in sports that whites like to both play and watch, you don’t. And Jewish overrepresentation in the early history of basketball are like whites in polo. They dominated in that sport because few others cared about competing in it.
More young American white boys today want to be LeBron James than Stephen Hawking. And at lower levels, like high school basketball, they play the sport in much larger numbers than blacks. It still doesn’t prevent African-Americans from dominating the sport at the highest levels.
Use some common sense.
‘Yes, they’re leading indicators. But not because they’re “growing,” since everyone in the modern world grows.’
Yes, that’s why the extent of growth matters
‘France’s national identity was not set, it was not a “unified cultural monolith, but rather ‘a vast encyclopedia of micro-civilizations,’ each with its own long history’
Every national consciousness can be broken down in this way. The question is which ties were cohesive enough to support solid development and growth. France passed that threshold a long time ago.
‘They were also already wealthy by world standards before they ever engaged in these nation-building efforts’
They had common cultures, relatively homogeneous populations, etc. That’s not to say there weren’t divisions or demarcations. But relatively speaking, there were far less.
‘As diverse as America’
Bogus. All of Singapore is subsumed in one US census category. Maybe 2.
‘If he wasn’t a famous player, who cares? ‘
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ossie_Schectman
‘More young American white boys today want to be LeBron James than Stephen Hawking’
Lies right out of the ‘let’s join the HBD club’ playbook. It’s not an accident that jews were considered ‘good at sports’ when they were poor and lower status. Bottom line is that there’s no hard scientific evidence to support the stereotype, and what evidence we do have is severely limited in geography and inconsistent over time. Like I said — invitation to lazy thinking.
HDI/GDP growth, that is.
Swankdishonest
…about?
About honesty.
Feel free to list your grievances.
He is more than a little dishonest.
Yes, i know.
Macaca writes:
I think what the goofball means is that most of SSA was never heavily controlled by the European powers, that just because almost the entire area of SSA was marked on the map as controlled by various European powers didn’t mean the colonists ever got very deeply into Africa or that development of the continent ever went very far.
This is true, but then it was just as true for much of West Asia and India, as well as in SE Asia. What’s remarkable in all these cases was how few Europeans it took to control large swaths of territory and enormous populations of natives. The rule of thumb was to seek out local allies, divide and conquer, and only go to war if necessary (but if you did have to go to war, make sure you won).
Not true. I’ve already mentioned Ethiopia. They had a civilization and a written language that preceded the serious European exploration of the dark continent by centuries. They were also never colonized. There were also numerous cities in East Africa.
Besides all nations are artificial, and successful empires are even more artificial than most nations. At least the inhabitants of some nations have certain common cultural traits (language, religion, etc.) they share. But even in the best of circumstances, a nation is held together by force, organization, and a make-believe ideology.
Is poor Macaca under the impression that Carlos Slim succeeded in Mexico because Lebanon colonized Mexico?
as usual PM is arguing with the voices in his head rather than words on the page.
he’s too tiresome to explain things to any longer.
Hahaha ! I guess I’m never going to hear how Carlos Slim is proof of the “advantage of colonization.”
Much of the population of East Africa has Semitic admixture, which makes them a notch more intelligent than your West Afro of Ghana and Nigeria. Islam managed to produce one “black” intellectual after their conquest of the Sub-Saharan region by the name of al-Jahiz, who was from Abyssinia (modern day Ethiopia). It would be assumed that he looked Semitic (with a Caucasoid appearance). Other than that, most of the Islamic geniuses were Persian stock coming from present day Iran and Central Asia, and hardly a person from the Arabian Peninsula. Now imagine a group of people dumber than the Arabs, being lauded as capable just like everyone else.
The Muslims wrote how dumb blacks were in comparison to other people they’ve encountered, such as the Europeans, Indians and the Chinese, so it should be no surprise to anyone that people from a millennia’s time, had the same low opinions of the current day HBDers when it comes to black intelligence.
of course they were stupid.
they had no civilization. that is no cities. they had no written languages.
one could argue that the absence of civilization resulted from stupidity, but again SSA started from a lower point than any other part of the world, so even if they were capable of development one would expect its current ranking as shittiest place on earth.
and of course all but its southernmost part was never colonized, or, to make it clear to those like PM who can’t grasp the idea of polysemy, settled by Europeans.
but they tried! they tried and failed!
the farthest north they got was Southern Rhodesia in colonial times. Malawi and Northern Rhodesia were for the most part disasters.
if even the white man couldn’t hack it in tropical Africa the non existence of civilization in SSA has at least one other explanation than the innate stupidity of black Africans.
compare this the tropical Latin America which still has a lot of unmixed Europeans.
if the indigenes of Peru or Bolivia had driven out the Spanish Peru and Bolivia would be even shittier than they are today very likely.
Macaca says this quite often and I’m never sure what he means by it. Europeans obviously couldn’t settle most of sub-Saharan Africa for biological reasons. They were susceptible to the local diseases because they hadn’t built up the immunities that SSAs had built up. So?
No one with any brains claims that Africans are at fault for being dumb. Just as their immunities are a product of their long residence in their particular environment, so their low IQs are a product of that same environment.
None of this would matter except of course the Africans want “cargo” and everything we know suggests the best way to get cargo is to be smart and industrious. Unfortunately, those don’t seem to have been traits selected for in Africa’s recent history.
if anything it should be even shittier than it is.
with the whole rest of the world the development was NOT ex nihilo.
with SSA it WAS except in South Africa, Namibia, etc.
the one exception is Ethiopia and Eritrea which still have an Orthodox church.
SSA’s absence of development 300 years ago might be lamed on the innate stupidity of black Africans, but, its current shittiness can’t be .
But that formulation misunderstands the relationship between the various traits and civilizational outcomes.
Even if whites couldn’t hack it in SSA, blacks could hack it – and so that excuse is off the table for them for why civilization didn’t flourish in their lands.
The West Indies brought high mortality from disease, but Europeans managed to settle there.
it’s simple. HBDers pretend that they are being “fair.” Jensen published his “findings” just 5 years after the Civil Rights Act passed. Now we’re here actually wondering whether Africa should be on par with nations that have AT LEAST many, many centuries of common culture in the span of 50 years.
So how much time do they need, Swank? Several more centuries? And do the Ethiopians get as long?
You seem to believe that the economies of SSA are already rapidly growing, and that this means they are successfully modernizing. If you truly believe that, then the process ought to happen rather quickly, since high growth rates of approximately 10 percent will converge with the West in a few decades.
Of course, you don’t believe it, which is why you prefer to delay the awful truth for as long as you possibly can.
SSA economies won’t converge with the West, unless the West collapses in a heap (which I admit is more than possible), in which case African will collapse in a worst heap. How could they converge when South American economies aren’t even converging with the West?
‘So how much time do they need, Swank? Several more centuries? And do the Ethiopians get as long?’
If after steady effort they aren’t any better off in 100 years or so, then that would be cause for serious concern. In about 50 years, with all of this effort, they should be where Asia was 50 years ago — ready to compete as an outsourcing destination.
‘How could they converge when South American economies aren’t even converging with the West?’
You seem to believe that only modern countries that are at the apex of modernity count as modern countries.
cargo?
my god!
couldn’t find it but PM reminds me of a Papuan with a Kellog’s cereal box as hat/head dress.
Melanesians are closer to Europeans than they are to Africans…genetically.
the John Frum cult has more affinity with the KKK than it has with Bilderbegers.
and needless to say, i hope…should anyone with an IQ over 100 read this:
the developed countries, and more that any the US, are, for the most part, cargo cults.
only 2% of the US workforce, at most, are qualified engineers.
as usual Germany is the vanguard of the west,
prof Shoe even had a post on it.
though it must be noted…because it’s so “funny” that Northern Rhodesian currently has a white president.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Scott
the only SSA country with a white pres i think.
of course JS may know that I am Jorge Rafael Videla.
indeed!
if JS has any paranoia let’s not encourage it.
why isn’t that moustachioed man showing up?
there it is…???
Swanky writes above:
No, ultimately being a modern developed country is about how you grow – through economic diversification (rather than relying on oil or beach resorts), high levels of mass education (rather than lagging behind in school), and cutting-edge scientific and business enterprise (which create wealth by applying new technology to products) – not the “extent of your growth.”
That’s why Saudi Arabia is not a modern country, despite its high per capita income and high HDI score.
U.S. Census racial categories have expanded, and Singapore has at least four of them covered in Chinese, Malays, Tamils, and white immigrants like this fellow.
They weren’t considered good at sports. You’re making shit up.
Hahaha ! Why do you think West Africans dominate sprints, Swanky? What sociological explanation can you possibly have for it? Racism? Because the cops are always chasing them?
I tell you to read The Sport Gene, but I already know you don’t read.
‘That’s why Saudi Arabia is not a modern country, despite its high per capita income and high HDI score.’
It is a modern country, it’s just on the left part of the curve.
‘U.S. Census racial categories have expanded, and Singapore has at least four of them covered in Chinese, Malays, Tamils, and white immigrants like this fellow.’
The first three fall under Asian. As far as I know, that’s a single race. So even if you have different national origins with a single “race,” the resulting population will be pretty homogeneous compared to the US.
‘They weren’t considered good at sports. You’re making shit up.’
They were considered to be faster, more balanced, and more alert. I guess you could argue these traits wouldn’t generalize…
‘Hahaha ! Why do you think West Africans dominate sprints, Swanky? What sociological explanation can you possibly have for it? Racism? Because the cops are always chasing them?’
Culture and training tells most of the story. I understand you’re trying to link it up with fast-twitch muscle fibers. But that would be to simplify a very complicated phenomenon — par for the HBD course. Fast-twitch muscle fibers alone do not make you fast. Further, an individual can change the distribution with training. So exactly what % can be accounted for by the deviation in innate twitch fibers? Probably not so high. Or at least, there really isn’t much evidence for it being high.
and again, i expect that there are significant differences at the extremes of whatever…
but anyone who’s met whites with IQ 85 and met an average black American knows that the blacks are a lot smarter than the IQ data says they are.
IQ is psychology, a pseudo-science, a “science” for folks too dumb to do real science.
there may be genuine differences. but i expect these are only apparent at the extremes. the extremes of chess talent, penis size, or whatever…my God who cares about the extremes?
if any size queen, like PM, thinks he’s gonna get all he (or she) wants from the average black guy…delusional!
black people are not subhuman. believe it or not!
I read once that blacks with adhd are less likely to get treated for it than whites. The rate at which ADHD is being recognized among blacks is growing extremely fast. IF it turns out that there’s a disparity in “ADHD” or a “lack of a desire to focus,” that could also explain another part of the gap.
the current gap where low dose amphetamine helps basically everyone.
but not me sadly.
realizing this drug dealing via MD i conned my doctor into giving my a prescription.
it was crap.
but if i were in the trenches…as Pershing said,
You ask me what we need to win this war. i answer tobacco as much as bullets.
that is i could tell i taken something, but beyond that…
nothing.
reminds me of a study in the US military which found if you had poor attention it helped, but if, like a fighter pilot, you had superior attention to begin with all it did was keep you awake…which in war may be life saving.
Yeah, just give out enough amphetamine. Everything else has failed, but we keep the faith. One day, yes, one day america will have a black president.
douche cunt
America is Jew-run shit-ocracy.
wave the Danish flag…please!
America is lost.
Europe isn’t quite yet.
do a Breivik in Denmark, and you’ll be a hero. REALLY!!!
at least to me.
America is …
the single worst thing to ever happpen the world
I’m not saying america in not lost, I’m saying that one day you WILL have a black president. I’m no fan of america. It’s just I deal with reality.
HUGH!
Denmark is fucking HEAVEN compared to the US and Canada.
REALLY!
thank your lucky stars.
Vestas has a big office building in my city already, but i’ve yet to see the Maersk building.
Mugabe, you said most of your family sounds like Buckley. It would be a shame if that noble caste of americans went silently into the night. How did you lose your grip on america? Are you men enough to assert your birthright?
Buckley was a Dinosaur from the beginning. FDR and Adlai Stevenson were the last patrician politicians in America. the American upper crust, so far as America ever had an upper crust, gave up after WW II. the meagre dividends and coupons and the Manhattan apartment or row house was enough.
eventually one stops fighting the roaches and just moves.
Why does a ruling class cede its dominion? Too tired? Too much entitlement without any drive behind? Out-manouvered by more cunning groups? Too low birth-rates? Too self-assured to see the danger coming?
god wordpress is 100% pure shit.
the United States is 230x the size of Denmark (excluding Greenland of course). and it’s 60x the population.
my family is/was just a bunch of over-educated losers and social climbers/wannabes. and on my mom’s side just plain losers.
but why?
a tres tres tres Roman Catholic family converted to Anglicanism on my branch.
little good it did them.
it used to be that there was an American ruling class. it is termed by contemporary historians the Episcopacy.
it was North Eastern American Anglicans. that is, New England, New York, and a few other states.
this class still exists, to an extent…perhaps to the same extent that there are Spaniards on Fernando Po.
it is small, has no power, and no wealth.
the roaches have over-run the building.
one vacates the building and hopes someone will burn it down eventually.
but the dinosaurs hoped as much.
Russia is also pretty big, and Putin and his chosen oligarchs hold on to it.
Seems pretty bad then, I didn’t have to turn out this way. Strategic mistakes were made no doubt about it. My question is, you seem so alienated, you don;t seem to view america as your country. That’s is the problem with states that aren’t nations I suppose, so called propositional nations (greatest bullshit there is probably). So the question is why do you care?
good on ya Hugh.
i’ve said it may times on this blog that America and the Americas were a very bad idea.
but i’m an American. that is, i have ancestors from all over Western Europe. as Verwoerd said, “this is our only mother land. we have know where else to go.”
a lot of the argument in the US is like arguing over spilt milk.
but in my case i’d be alienated wherever i lived.
“this is our only mother land. we have nowhere else to go.”
“this is our only mother land. we have nowhere else to go.”
Besides, you would need a passport 🙂
not me.
yet more lies by pp.
she’s got lots to hide.
and the funny thing is it’s exactly the HBD-types who are least likely to have passports.
HBD Chick has an interesting take as to why the Muslims became dumb after their great golden age. It could be because of dysgenic inbreeding. The Muslims weren’t all that impressive to begin with, but they do appear dumber now.
https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2014/07/13/reverse-renaissance/
Old civilizations all popped up in warm sunny dry places. And that lasted until the 16th century more or less. It won’t ever be like that again unless we see a total collapse of the current system. So I;d say muslims are just as clever now.
Mugabe, from your exchanges with Pumpkin I have gatherer that you are a ladies’ man. And you’ve got brains. No need to let the alienation get you down then. 🙂
Northeast Asians aren’t White by any stretch of the imagination. Their personality profiles are very different, and they’re also very genetically unrelated to one another. A Frenchmen shares more genetic similarities with a Greek, than a Hong Kong Citizen with a Chinese in Beijing.