• About

Pumpkin Person

~ The psychology of horror

Pumpkin Person

Monthly Archives: February 2015

Race, autism & schizophrenia

24 Tuesday Feb 2015

Posted by pumpkinperson in ethnicity

≈ 52 Comments

Scholar J. Philippe Rushton argued that there are at least 3 major races: Negroids, Caucasoids & Mongoloids, and that on a great many traits (i.e. brain size, genital size, size of breasts and buttocks, mental stability, promiscuity, crime) , Negroids were at one extreme, and Mongoloids were at the opposite extreme, with Caucasoids being in the middle. Rushton believed this pattern was caused by the r/K evolutionary spectrum. In other words, he believed Mongoloids evolved a more K genetic profile (lower birth rate but lower death rate) while Negroids evolved a more r genetic profile (higher birth rate but higher death rate) with Caucasoids being in between.

Rushton mapped these differences on to the time period when each of the three races branched off the main trunk of the human evolutionary tree: Negroids first (about 200,000 years ago), Cacuasoids second (about 110,000 years ago) and Mongoloids last (41,000 years ago). Rushton used these splitting off dates to argue that evolution was progressive, and some populations are more advanced than others.

One trait Rushton didn’t focus on since it did not get as much attention until recently, is autism, however it seems likely to me that autism also follows Rushton’s racial pattern. I have no data to support this, but my subjective impression is that Mongoloids are the most autistic race, and Negroids are the least autistic race, with Caucasoids in the middle. I believe this occurred because as humans migrated out of Africa into colder and colder climates, there was an r/K evolutionary trade-off: social IQ (useful for attracting mates and having high birth rates) was reduced, while technological IQ (useful for survival) was increased. So not only did humans become more intelligent as we moved North, but the type of intelligence also changed.

However the corollary of Negroids being the least autistic is that they are probably the most schizophrenic race, and Mongoloids are probably the least schizophrenic race. This is because autism and schizophrenia are in many ways opposites. That is autistics tend to be oblivious to the fact that other people have minds; this results in low social IQ because they treat other humans like objects. But schizophrenics have the opposite problem, they are so good at recognizing the mental states of others that they often perceive mental states where they don’t even exist (i.e. the tree is trying to tell me something).

In psycholgy circles schizophrenia is sometimes called a black condition.

What all of this suggests is that autism is a K trait and schizophrenia is an r trait. Thus even within the same race, we tend to find the upper class are more autistic and the lower class are more schizophrenic. This is probably because the upper class tend to be more K and the lower class tend to be more r.

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...

The 100ish most powerful people in America?

22 Sunday Feb 2015

Posted by pumpkinperson in Uncategorized

≈ 15 Comments

Power is the ability to control other people. There are at least three major ways to control people: 1) winning hearts, 2) winning minds, and 3) winning wallets. Thus, there are at least three major elites in America: The popular elite (those with political capital), the cultural elite (those with cultural capital), and the financial elite (those with financial capital).

Thus in order to make a list of the 100ish most powerful people in America, I simply took the top few dozen from each category (a few elites belonged to more than one category). Of course this is greatly oversimplified, but it might give you a rough and ready idea of who runs the country.

The Popular Elite (the conventionally powerful)

The popular elite are those who have achieved their elite status through the power of the people. They are the people who have won America’s hearts. America claims to be a democracy and in a democracy popularity = power, so the popular elite is simply the few dozen most worshiped Americans (as identified by Gallup):

1. Barack Obama
2. Hillary Clinton
3. Oprah Winfrey
4. Condoleeza Rice
5. Bill Clinton
6. Michelle Obama
7. Rev. Billy Graham
8. George W. Bush
9. Angelina Jolie
10. Sarah Palin
11. Ben Carson
12. Bill Gates
13. Bill O’reilly
14. George H.W. Bush
15. Mitt Romney
16. Joel Olsteen
17. Elizabeth Warren
18. Laura Bush
19. Barbara Bush
20. Ellen DeGeneres
21. Beyonce Knowles
22. Scarlett Johanson
23. Thomas Monson
24. Donald Trump
25. Colin Powell
26. Jimmy Carter
27. Warren Buffet
28. Ted Cruz
29. Mike Huckabee
30. John McCain
31. Clint Eastwood
32. Glenn Beck
33. Brad Pitt
34. Newt Gingrich
35. Michelle Bachmann

The Cultural Elite (the intelligentsia)

The cultural elite are those who have achieved their elite status through the power of their ideas and arguments. They are the people who have won America’s minds, or at least the minds of the elites. According to Atlantic Monthly, these are the top columnists, bloggers and broadcast pundits who shape the national debate:

1. Paul Krugman
2. Rush Limbaugh
3. George Will
4. Thomas Friedman
5. David Brooks
6. Charles Krauthammer
7. Glenn Beck
8. Frank Rich
9. Andrew Sullivan
10. Karl Rove
11. Sean Hannity
12. David Broder
13. Peggy Noonan
14. Rachel Maddow
15. Arianna Huffington
16. Fareed Zakaria
17. Maureen Dowd
18. E.J. Dionne
19. Bill O’reilly
20. Keith Olbermann
21. Kathleen Parker
22. Glen Greenwald
23. Nicholas Kristof
24. William Kristol
25. Robert Samuelson
26. Dick Morris
27. Eugene Robinson
28. David Ignatius
29. Josh Marshal
30. Mark Levin
31. Holman Jenkins
32. Bill Moyers
33. Richard Cohen
34. Jonah Goldberg
35. Gail Collins

The Financial Elite (the rich)

Last but certainly not least, are the financial elites. They have the power to win America’s wallets. Thier campaign contribution can decide which popular elites can run for president and their ability to buy newspapers and cable networks determine which cultural elites get to have a platform and which popular elites get good publicity. Never underestimate the power of money. The financial elite are simply the few dozen richest billionaires in America according to authoritative Forbes magazine:

1. Bill Gates
2. Warren Buffet
3. Larry Ellison
4. Charles Koch
5. David Koch
6. Christy Walton & family
7. Jim Walton
8. Michael Bloomberg
9. Alice Walton
10. S. Robson Walton
11. Mark Zuckerberg
12. Sheldon Adelson
13. Larry Page
14. Sergery Brin
15. Jeff Bezos
16. Carl Icahn
17. George Soros
18. Steve Ballmer
19. Forest Mars Jr
20 Jacqueline Mars
21. John Mars
22. Len Blavatnik
23. Phil Knight
24. Harold Hamm
25. Michael Dell
26. Charles Ergen
27. Paul Allen
28. Laurence Powell Jobs & family
29. Anne Cox Chambers
30. Ray Dalio
31. Donald Bren
32. Ronald Perelman
33. Rupert Murdoch & family
34. Jack Taylor & family
35. John Paulson

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...

Please estimate this man’s IQ

21 Saturday Feb 2015

Posted by pumpkinperson in Uncategorized

≈ 17 Comments

Here’s an interesting article by journalist Daniel Seligman. If you read the article, let me know what you think his IQ is.

The reason I am asking you to estimate Seligman’s IQ is because many years ago, Seligman was administered the WAIS-R. He once published a lively description of what it was like to take the WAIS-R. Although he did not reveal his IQ score, he revealed enough information about how he did on a few subtests that an expert can approximate his IQ from a limited number of subtests he did mention.

But since 99.999% of us are not experts, his IQ is not publicly known, so please guess his IQ from the article he wrote, and I will see if anyone guesses close to the right number.

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...

The media gives Ivy League Democratic candidates a pass on being anti-science

19 Thursday Feb 2015

Posted by pumpkinperson in Uncategorized

≈ 10 Comments

Lion of the Blogosphere has a good post up about the media’s double standard when it comes to calling out presidential candidates (and their families) for promoting pseudoscience. Perhaps there was no more glaring an example of this hypocrisy than the recent controversy over presidential candidates giving credence to the discredited alleged link between vaccines and autism. When Republican candidates like Governor Christie and Rand Paul expressed ambivalence about vaccines they were derided as anti-science loons and a menace to public health, but when far more influential Democratic candidates did the same thing, liberal elites were either silent, or claimed they were taken out of context.

For example in 2008 Hillary Clinton stated in a written response to the issue:

I am committed to make investments to find the causes of autism, including possible environmental causes like vaccines

One of the few liberal publications that was honest enough to admit that candidates on both sides of the political spectrum have waffled on the vaccine issue is Ezra Klein’s Vox, which noted that in 2008, Barack Obama said the following:

We’ve seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are suspicious that it’s connected to the vaccines. This person included (gesturing to an audience member). The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it.

So how did liberals react when they learned that their God Obama waffled on this all important issue. Similar to how they reacted to the news that their other God, Charles Darwin expressed pro-HBD views. By either outright denial blaming Vox for misrepresenting Obama, or my favorite, claiming Obama was taken out of context: “What he really meant was….”

Apparently, when Obama said “the science right now is inconclusive”, he only meant the science of what causes autism. He couldn’t possibly have meant the science of autism and vaccines, because suggesting a link between vaccines and autism would have made Obama as ignorant or as evil as a Republican, and that’s just not possible because he’s an elegant svelte Democrat who went to Harvard (and half-black to boot!), not an overweight prole Republican like Chris Christie or an uneducated playboy model like Jenny McCarthy. Only the latter two could genuinely be evil or ignorant enough to promote the pseudoscientific anti-vaccine movement, Democrats tell themselves, ignoring the fact that elite liberal regions of America are the most afflicted with anti-vaxxers.

But it should be obvious to any honest liberal that part of Obama’s genius is he’s able to make statements that are ambiguous enough that he can pander to one group at one time, but have plausible deniability if and when his liberal defenders need to cover for him.

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...

Did Darwin believe in HBD?

19 Thursday Feb 2015

Posted by pumpkinperson in ethnicity

≈ 54 Comments

A commenter on one of Steve Sailer’s blogs (can’t remember who) once had an insightful observation about liberalism. It’s largely motivated by narcissism. I think an example of this might be liberals enjoy being evolutionists because it makes them feel intellectually superior to all those Republican creationists and they enjoy being politically correct because it makes them feel morally superior to all those Republican “racists”.

But what happens when liberals find out that being an evolutionist makes you what liberals would consider a “racist”? A fascinating example of cognitive dissonance.

For decades creationists have been arguing that Darwin was a racist and that evolutionary theory is inherently racist. In some ways this argument is completely unfair. Darwin was actually extremely progressive for his era in the sense that he opposed slavery and had great compassion for black people. But on the other hand, in my opinion, it’s totally obvious that Darwin had views that modern liberals would consider racist. In my opinion, Darwin believed in HBD, and quite radical HBD at that.

For starters, Darwin was one of the first to infer that humans evolved from monkeys in Africa. This was long before we had much proof to that effect, so why would Darwin even think such a thing? He obviously thought that the monkeys in Africa (i.e. chimpanzees, gorillas) were especially human-like, or that the humans in Africa were especially monkey-like, or both.

Even more disturbing, was this quote from Darwin:

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes . . . will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

Now liberals will have use believe that despite Darwin being caught red-handed with his pants down comparing certain races to apes, he did not really believe in HBD: “You see, what he really meant was….” It reminds me of when a man gets caught by his wife having sex with his secretary, his only rebuttal is “baby, it’s not what it looks like.” What it looks like is Darwin describing an evolutionary hierarchy: Caucasian > negro/Australoid > gorilla > baboon.

In a desperate attempt at revisionist history, liberals have swarmed to wikipedia, the media, academia, and other liberal-friendly platforms to argue that Darwin’s HBD extremism is actually HBD denial, once we understand the context. According to liberals, Darwin only meant that Caucasians would replace savage races because of their cultural superiority; biological superiority had nothing to do with it. And are we also supposed to believe that Darwin’s predicted demise of gorillas was also for cultural, not biological reasons?

Never mind that Darwin’s theory of natural selection was actually based on biology, not culture. Never mind that Darwin’s own cousin (Francis Galton) was the father of HBD. Never mind that Darwin’s own book on natural selection was subtitled The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Never mind that one of Darwin’s closest friends and disciples Thomas Huxley was a hardcore HBDer. Why let facts get in the way of a convenient rationalization.

According to racismreview.com:

…Darwin applied his evolutionary idea of natural selection not only to animal development but also to the development of human “races.” He saw natural selection at work in the killing of indigenous peoples of Australia by the British, wrote here of blacks (some of the “savage races”) being a category close to gorillas, and spoke against social programs for the poor and “weak” because such programs permitted the least desirable people to survive.

But many liberals can not accept Darwins’s HBDism because it would mean that either the creationists were right to condemn Darwin or that liberals were wrong to condemn HBD. In a choice between surrendering their intellectual or moral authority, liberals choose denial. For liberalism is like a religion, and Darwin was the prophet. Like all religions or cults, when the truth is exposed, people don’t stop believing. Just the opposite: They just come up with increasingly creative rationalizations to deny the truth, and the effort this takes makes them more and more psychologically invested in denying inconvenient realities.

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...

Beating up the homeless

18 Wednesday Feb 2015

Posted by pumpkinperson in income

≈ 42 Comments

Sometimes I get really depressed by the evil of human nature. It seems like for a lot of middle income youths, beating the crap out of some poor defenseless homeless person is entertainment.

This shows that if you don’t have money, society looks at you as subhuman, worthy of being kicked around and in some cases even urinated on.

But there’s also something Darwinian about it. Those who can’t adapt to the environment (i.e. earn money) are victimized by those who can. We see this all over the animal kingdom but humans are unique in that they are one of the few animals that victimizes the weak just for the sheer sadistic pleasure it gives them, while other animals victimize only for food.

Some people like to talk about how the rich are evil because they make their money by exploiting the middle income earners, but it’s the middle income earners who go around beating up and urinating on the homeless. You don’t see millionaires going around beating up and urinating on average Americans. Nor do you see billionaires like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet beating up and urinating on millionaires. I suppose Marxists would say they do it metaphorically.

A lot of middle income people adopt the self-serving philosophy that the poor are poor because of stupidity and the rich are rich because of evil, and only they, the middle income people, have both brains and morality. But I think this only half true. Yes, the rich are probably more evil than middle income Americans (on average), but they’re also probably a lot smarter. And yes, the poor are probably a lot dumber than middle income Americans, but they are also probably a lot less evil.

So just as middle income Americans look down at the homeless for being stupid, the rich can also look down at the middle incomes for being stupid. And just as the middle incomes can look down at the rich for being evil, the homeless can look down down at the middle income for being evil. Occam’s razor implies that whatever positive or negative traits associated with money probably apply about as much as to those who are richer than you as to those who are poorer than you.

The video below, where a homeless person offers a middle income person a hug after getting beat up, demonstrates the superior morality of the homeless over the middle-income Americans that torment them.

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...

Woman with very low IQ accussed of leaving baby in a trashcan

16 Monday Feb 2015

Posted by pumpkinperson in Low IQ

≈ 20 Comments

There’s a story in the Daily Mail about a woman named Alicia Englert accused of leaving her baby in a neighbor’s trashcan, but the neighbor heard noises and the baby was luckily rushed to the hospital and saved.  Englert took a court ordered IQ test (apparently the Wechsler) and scored 51.  The Wechsler scale is normed so that Americans have a mean IQ of 100 with a standard deviation of 15, but because of massive demographic changes that have occurred in America over the last several decades, the white IQ distribution tends to be higher (but narrower) than America’s as a whole (103, SD = 14.5).  As a result, scholar Richard Lynn converts IQs based on American norms onto a scale where Whites have a mean of 100 and an SD of 15, because this makes scores more comparable with older IQ tests normed when the country was more white.  Compared to whites, the average American has an IQ of 97, and Englert would have an IQ of 46.

Now, presumably the reason Englert took an IQ test is that people with IQs below 70 (below 66 on white norms) are not legally responsible for their alleged crimes in certain states so scoring low would help her defence.   What’s interesting about her having a white IQ of 46 is that she has an online dating profile, graduated high school, and was apparently literate enough to write the following:

‘hi my name is alicia im 23 years old I work full time I have brown hair im 5’1 I have no kids I do drink but only on the weekends I have my own car I still live with my mom and dad for now!!! if you want to know more just ask

Back in 1980, scholar Arthur Jensen talked about the expected achievements of people with different IQ levels.  Jensen didn’t distinguish between IQ and white IQ because back in 1980, America was overwhelmingly white, so IQs based on American norms were pretty much the same as IQs based on white norms, so it was pointless to make that distinction.  Jensen wrote the following:

The four socially and personally most important threshold regions on the IQ scale are those that differentiate with high probability between persons who, because of their level of general mental ability, can or cannot attend a regular school (about IQ 50), can or cannot master the traditional subject matter of elementary school (about IQ 75), can or cannot succeed in the academic or college preparatory curriculum through high school (about IQ 105), can or cannot graduate from an accredited four-year college with grades that would qualify for admission to a professional or graduate school (about IQ 115).

So based on Jensen’s thresholds, someone with an IQ below 50 should not have been able to attend a regular school, let alone graduate high school.

But then thanks to the Flynn effect, which is probably mostly caused by rising nutrition improving brain size and brain function over the 20th century, a white IQ of 46 is probably a lot smarter than it used to be.  Indeed Richard Lynn argues that the average bushman has a white IQ of 54.

The alleged crime itself indicates a lack of IQ on Englert’s part.  Why not just give the baby up for adoption when there are so many loving couples that would provide it with a wonderful home?  And if she wanted to do something as terrible as putting her baby in a trashcan, she should have known that a trashcan that belongs to a neighbour greatly increased the odds of her getting caught.

Even still, it does seem suspicious that someone with an IQ this low would be smart enough to graduate high school, drive a car and use the Internet.  I hope she didn’t score low on purpose for legal reasons.

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...

Little Children (2006)

14 Saturday Feb 2015

Posted by pumpkinperson in Uncategorized

≈ 9 Comments

Rating: 9/10

Recently I was looking for a good movie to watch.  I was about to order another Atom Egoyan movie on demand when I suddenly remembered that a commenter on this blog named “Mugabe” had repeatedly praised the movie Little Children as the best movie since it’s release in 2006, recently saying:

this movie is not entertainment.

it’s serious.

it’s adult…in the good sense.

too many with children are still children themselves however old they may be in years.

Since I like serious adult movies and was curious to see if someone who claims such a high IQ has good artistic taste, I searched the on demand movies to see if it was available and started watching.

The movie was about a group of suburban stay-at-home moms (and one stay-at-home dad) and the childish ways they behave.  As Mugabe implied, you think the title of the films refers to the children they are raising, but it may refer to the parents themselves.  But in the tradition of American Beauty, it’s also just about the deadness of suburbia.

It’s almost Darwinian in the sense that if life evolved to reproduce, then once we reproduce our lives become meaningless.  They are no longer about ourselves, but about our children.  Almost as if we start dying the moment our children are born.  They replace us.

And so the film is full of parents trying to recapture their youth.  There’s the stay-at-home dad (played by Patrick Wilson) who spends night after night watching teenagers skateboard hoping they will invite him to join, and even starts playing evening football with a bunch of cops because it reminds him of his glory days in high school.  There’s the stay-at-home mom (played by Kate Winslet) who has an affair because it brings excitement back into her life.  There’s the suburban book club, desperate to get younger women to join.

It’s an extremely powerful movie about how we give up our lives for our children.  In one case, literally.

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...

Women have a genetic need to be dominated & men have a genetic need to dominate

13 Friday Feb 2015

Posted by pumpkinperson in Uncategorized

≈ 108 Comments

[Update April 6, 2017:  For an alternative take on this topic, please see Dominance and Gender by Afrosapiens]

Since becoming a celebrity, I’m always looking at what other famous bloggers are writing about, and few bloggers are more famous than Chateau Heartiste. To countless men on the internet looking for love, Heartiste is God, and rightfully so. Of course skeptics think the type of dating tips found in the manosphere are useless because women are either physically attracted to you or they’re not, and there’s nothing you can do to manipulate them. But that’s only half true.

Recently Heartiste was blogging about the popularity of Fifty Shades of Grey, a book turned movie about a woman who starts dating a very dominating man. Heartise writes:

I believe women are aroused by assholes qua assholes because assholes are, above all, INTERESTING men. They aren’t like the mediocre masses of rapidly feminizing beta males. You want masculine, virtuous men of the West? The path to that nirvana is blazed by the swashbuckling assholes.

I remember in university I was doing some presentation with a complete moron, who kept pestering me with stupid questions about when I was supposed to speak and when he was supposed to speak. Finally, I lost my temper and yelled and berated him for his utter incompetence in front of the entire class. But what I’ll never forget was how sexually aroused a female classmate was upon observing my act of dominance. The expression on her face is seared permanently into my brain. [update march 29, 2017:  One reader thought this was mean, but the guy was way too popular and over-confident to have been bothered by a nobody like me putting him in his place for one brief moment]

I believe that in prehistoric times, women who were sexually aroused by submissive men had fewer surviving offspring, because those men got dominated by other men, and thus couldn’t provide for their women and children. As a result, largely the genes of women who like dominant men, and thus like being dominated, got passed on. Similarly, men who like feeling dominant, also passed on more genes, because men who are dominant in all aspects of their lives acquire more resources and status, which in prehistoric times, meant more genetic fitness.

But there’s a dark side to this. Because so many women like being dominated, they are more likely to tolerate physical and emotional abuse in relationships, and are less likely to strive to positions of power in society. In some ways, to be sexually fulfilled, women must sacrifice their dignity.

There’s also a dark side for men. Because men are turned on by being dominant, they are more likely to engage in rape and other sadistic acts, because for some men, consensual sex is a turnoff. If the woman is agreeing to the sex, she’s not being dominated, which ruins the experience for a lot of men. The dark truth is that a lot of men are so evil, they go home every night and have sex with their wives, while fantasizing about jumping out of the bushes and raping some completely random lady on the street.

So how does understanding all this help men get women to be attracted to them? The trick is to make women feel dominated, but a man should never, under any circumstances, hit a woman, rape a woman, or cause her physical harm. You should also never play some disgusting S&M role playing game. For one thing, if a women is agreeing to be dominated, then by definition she’s not being dominated, since she’s getting what she wants, and she knows it, and more importantly, she knows you know it.

A man should never, ever, EVER, hit a woman or rape a woman, but that doesn’t mean you can’t show your superiority in other ways. Most women suck at video games, chess, and pocket billiards, so get her to play those games with you and obliterate her every time. Remind her that you’re better at math than she is, and you’re better at fixig things around the house. Be arrogant, but come across as sincere in your arrogance. But be subtle enough about it that she never catches on that you’re using some kind of strategy on her.

The other key is to never disrespect your girlfriend in front of others, especially family, coworkers, or friends. What you must understand is that women are multidimensional beings. Just because the sexual part of them wants to be dominated, doesn’t mean there aren’t other parts of her that want respect.

So give a woman plenty of respect, but never for any dominant traits. Never praise her intelligence, her income, her career; instead tell her how pretty she is, how sexy she is…praise her cooking, her cleaning, her body…tell her she’d make an excellent mother.

The problem is, if a man does all this, and it works, then he ends up with a woman who enjoys being dominated, which means that in the relationship, the man doesn’t get to fulfill his genetic need to dominate, because dominating a woman who wants to be dominated is by definition not domination.

[Update Nov 22, 2018:  This article might be getting endorsed by a popular sex blog.  If you’re over 18 and interested in sex, check it out]

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...

R.I.P. David Carr

13 Friday Feb 2015

Posted by pumpkinperson in Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

When one of my heroes dies, it seems I always learn about it first on Steve Sailer’s blog. I considered Carr to be the best columnist in the New York Times; in fact whenever I found myself bashing the Times, a voice in the back of my head would say “David Carr writes there so it can’t be all crap.” Indeed I think a large part of the incredible prestige and influence of The New York Times is that they are able to hire the most talented writers.

Carr was absolutely brilliant, and the fact that he was a real American with a real background who lived a real life, and not some spoiled pampered Ivy League elite, made his rise to the pinnacle of the intelligentsia all the more impressive.

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...
← Older posts

contact pumpkinperson at easiestquestion@hotmail.ca

Recent Comments

Some Guy on Some ethnic differences in…
pumpkinperson on Some ethnic differences in…
Name on Some ethnic differences in…
Some Guy on Some ethnic differences in…
RaceRealist on Some ethnic differences in…
actually not AIDS br… on Friday the 13th 1980 (the most…
sorry, AIDS brain... on Friday the 13th 1980 (the most…
538 = number of elec… on Friday the 13th 1980 (the most…
biscuit on Friday the 13th 1980 (the most…
Name on Friday the 13th 1980 (the most…
Name on Friday the 13th 1980 (the most…
was pill bottom of h… on Friday the 13th 1980 (the most…
notice how pill refe… on Friday the 13th 1980 (the most…
The Philosopher on Friday the 13th 1980 (the most…
cassidy hutchinson v… on Friday the 13th 1980 (the most…

Archives

  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014

Categories

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

Meta

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

Recent Comments

Some Guy on Some ethnic differences in…
pumpkinperson on Some ethnic differences in…
Name on Some ethnic differences in…
Some Guy on Some ethnic differences in…
RaceRealist on Some ethnic differences in…
actually not AIDS br… on Friday the 13th 1980 (the most…
sorry, AIDS brain... on Friday the 13th 1980 (the most…
538 = number of elec… on Friday the 13th 1980 (the most…
biscuit on Friday the 13th 1980 (the most…
Name on Friday the 13th 1980 (the most…
Name on Friday the 13th 1980 (the most…
was pill bottom of h… on Friday the 13th 1980 (the most…
notice how pill refe… on Friday the 13th 1980 (the most…
The Philosopher on Friday the 13th 1980 (the most…
cassidy hutchinson v… on Friday the 13th 1980 (the most…

Archives

  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014

Categories

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

Meta

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

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Follow Following
    • Pumpkin Person
    • Join 631 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Pumpkin Person
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
%d bloggers like this: