The brilliant Charles Murray is finally wrong about something.
Iconic blogger Steve Sailer recently blogged about the following comments by Murray:
The results are always the same: The richer the parents, the higher the children’s SAT scores. This has led some to view the SAT as merely another weapon in the inequality wars, and to suggest that SAT should actually stand for “Student Affluence Test.”
It’s a bum rap. All high-quality academic tests look as if they’re affluence tests. It’s inevitable. Parental IQ is correlated with children’s IQ everywhere. In all advanced societies, income is correlated with IQ. Scores on academic achievement tests are always correlated with the test-takers’ IQ. Those three correlations guarantee that every standardized academic-achievement test shows higher average test scores as parental income increases.
What Murray is saying, obviously, is that rich kids do well on the SAT because they have high IQ genes and the rich environment they were raised in has little effect. I’d hate to throw Charles Murray under the bus, because he along with Steve Sailer really paved the way for people like me to talk openly about behavioral genetics, but in my scientific judgement, he’s wrong.
On the combined verbal and math section of the new SAT, kids from homes earning over $200 K a year average 1157 while kids from homes earning less than 20 K a year average 895. On a scale where the U.S. mean is set at 100 (SD = 15) these scores are equivalent to IQs of 118 and 100 respectively (note only the most academic third of America tends to take the SAT so scores are high). That’s a difference of 1.2 standard deviations in kids coming from homes that are 3.07 standard deviations apart in normalized income. 1.2/3.07 = 0.39, suggesting the correlation between SAT scores and the income of your parents is about 0.4.
But even 0.4 is an underestimate, because among rich kids, taking the SAT is very common, but among poor kids with little hope of affording college, it’s largely the best and brightest who take the SAT, so if everyone took the SAT, the correlation between SAT scores and your parents’ income would be well above 0.4.
But 0.4 is widely cited as the correlation between IQ and one’s own income (see Jensen, 1998). One would expect IQ to correlate much less with your parents’ income, because a teenager’s IQ correlates no more than 0.6 with the mid-parents’ IQ; thus the correlation should be 0.4(0.6) = 0.24. Instead, if the SAT is used instead of an official IQ test, it’s almost double that.
Clearly, the SAT is culturally biased in favor of kids from rich homes (and probably educated homes) and biased against kids from poor (and probably uneducated homes). And this is not the first time we’ve seen this effect. In the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study, black kids adopted into white professional homes scored the equivalent of IQ 95 on measures of scholastic aptitude and achievement, but scored an IQ of only 84 (about the same as black Americans raised by their biological parents) on the WAIS (an official IQ test).
What this suggests is that the SAT probably underestimates the ability of kids from low SES homes, and overestimates the ability of kids from high SES homes. I’ve even noticed this with celebrities. Bill Cosby, Howard Stern, and Rosie O’Donnell have all come from low SES homes and have all claimed to have scored poorly on the SAT, but all strike me as highly intelligent. By contrast George W. Bush did well on the SAT and comes from an extremely high SES background, but does not strike me as intelligent. The SAT would probably better reflect IQ if scores were corrected for SES, but one must be careful not to over-correct, because over half the test’s correlation with such measures is probably genetic.
I don’t buy that, so I did a quick and dirty analysis using NLSY79 data. The correlation between family/parental income in 1979 and SAT scores (math+verbal) in 1981 is 0.23 (N=771) while the correlation between SAT scores in 1981 and personal income in 2008 is 0.36 (N=635). These are lower-bound estimates because single-year income figures are unreliable and because I was too lazy to log transform the income data. The parental income variable is probably more reliable than the personal income variable because it is often the sum of both parents’ income.
Variables (can’t guarantee they’re the best ones in the NLSY dataset):
R02179.00 parental income in 1979
R06199.00 math SAT
R06200.00 verbal SAT
T20767.00 personal income in 2008
Controlling for sex, race, etc. would probably change the results somewhat though.
I don’t buy that, so I did a quick and dirty analysis using NLSY79 data. The correlation between family/parental income in 1979 and SAT scores (math+verbal) in 1981 is 0.23 (N=771)
So my analysis said 0.4, & your analysis says 0.23.
I did a google search & it turns out we’re both right:
If the SAT is an extremely weak predictor of academic potential it is a moderate predictor of family income. Average scores are proportional to family income: students from families with higher incomes tend to receive higher scores. Estimates of the correlation between SAT score and family income vary from 0.23 to 0.40 (Crouse & Trusheim and Doermann, respectively).
http://hypertextbook.com/eworld/sat.shtml
I suspect that because people from low SES backgrounds tend not to even take the SAT, your method of actually calculating the correlation might have underestimated what the correlation would be if everyone took the test.
By contrast my method of estimating what correlation would give the observed difference between family income extremes gives a better sense of what the correlation would be if everyone took the test (but still likely underestimates for reasons I explained in the post)
In short, I think the SAT might be an excellent test for the vast majority who take it, but for people who fall outside that broad middle class, it perhaps over or underestimates significantly in ways that official IQ tests do not.
But more research is needed & you clearly have the skills to investigate.
I used the same sample to measure the correlations between SAT scores and parental income and personal income. This means that the same limitations (range restriction, unreliability, etc.) apply to both correlations (although missingness patterns are possibly different). Therefore, I can directly compare the strength of the association of SAT scores with parental versus personal income — you can’t do the same with your hodgepodge of results and extrapolations from different/unknown samples — and my comparison shows that the correlation between parental income and SAT scores is close to the value predicted from the correlations between SAT and personal income and SAT and midparent IQ.
Therefore, I can directly compare the strength of the association of SAT scores with parental versus personal income — you can’t do the same with your hodgepodge of results and extrapolations from different/unknown samples — and my comparison shows that the correlation between parental income and SAT scores is close to the value predicted from the correlations between SAT and personal income and SAT and midparent IQ.
P, I like the way you think. And you’re absolutely right, that you did an apples to apples analysis, while my analysis was apples and oranges.
But it’s possible that range restriction is a much bigger issue when correlating SATs with parents’ income then when correlating SATs with kids’ future income.
In my analysis I compared the SATs of kids from the richest homes (those at and above the 94 percentile; probably the 97 percentile in average normalized Z score: Z = +1.87) with the SAT scores of kids from the poorest homes (those at or below the 25 percentile; probably the 11 percentile in average normalized Z score: Z = -1.2) and found the Z score gap in SAT scores was much higher than expected.
Now if you could do something similar with your sample, it would be extremely interesting; you don’t have to use the same cut-off points I did, but the point is to compare the SAT scores of the richest and poorest extremes (first as measured by parents’ income, and then as measured by personal income)
Now if you find that the gap in SAT scores between these two extremes is 74%+ larger when measured by personal income than by parents’ income, it will show you are right, but if you find that the SAT gap is as large or heaven forbid larger when measured by parents’ income, it will show I am right.
yet pp claims to have proved there is a linear relationship between IQ and income USING THE SAT.
pp = FUCKTARDED FUCKTARD.
besides it’s alreadt a FACT that the SAT correlates with the SB and WAIS at better than .7. maybe the new SAT doesn’t?
pp believes what she wants to believe even if her beliefs are TOTALLY INCONSISTENT.
I showed the linear IQ-income correlation using different kinds of data, not SAT data only
The point is if you deduce the IQs of different income levels from the SATs of their kids, the IQ-income linear correlation has a much steeper slope
Thus I suspect the SAT is overestimating the brain power of high SES folks (like you!).
I should call this theory the Mugabe effect, though that would be unfair to the real Mugabe
you used the SAT ONLY…
AND your math using it was WRONG in SEVERAL PATHETIC WAYS.
In my most famous post on the linear IQ-income correlation, I used ASVAB scores, though SATs for the highest levels:
https://pumpkinperson.com/2014/11/09/hypocrites-who-deny-linear-iq-income-correlation/
Of course as you’ve pointed out, the ASVAB is similar to the SAT…but the point is, in this particular post, I correlated test scores from youth with personal income in adulthood, not parental income growing up
AND your math using it was WRONG in SEVERAL PATHETIC WAYS.
Get your degree in heritability:
https://pumpkinperson.com/2015/04/02/get-a-degree-in-heritability/
Then you can have a mathematical opinion.
like me? you’ve got no idea what high SES is pp.
because a teenager’s IQ correlates no more than 0.6 with the mid-parents’ IQ; thus the correlation should be 0.4(0.6) = 0.24
wrong as usual. if x is correlated with y and y is correlated with z the correlation of x and z is between the cosine of the sum of the angles between x and y and y and z and their difference.
http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/639938/given-x-and-y-are-correlated-and-y-and-z-are-correlated-what-is-the-range-of-cor
maybe if pp had a high SAT score she could understand this.
We don’t have SATs in Canada you nitwit.
Maybe if you had a high Wechsler IQ you would know that I’m specifically talking about the expected SAT correlation with your parent’s income if said correlation was entirely caused by the parent-child IQ correlation.
yeah..i’m the nitwit?
did i say you’d taken the SAT?
NO. I DID NOT. but you’re just an autistic retard so you thought i had.
I know full well that you know I’m Canadian and that you know Canada doesn’t have SATs. You mention it every month. But your comment didn’t deserve an intelligent reply. You’re too autistic to realize that
That seems complicated.
I just used variance sums.
X = (corrXY)^2 + X(other, ind)
V of Xo = 1-corrXY^2.
Then same for Z.
So XZ –> corrXYcorrYZ +/- sqrt(1-corrXY^2)(1-corrYZ^2)
(XZ is simplified by the fact that several terms are zero because there is no correlation)
.24 +/- .733.
makes sense to me.
The SAT would probably better reflect IQ if scores were corrected for SES
let’s do that for all IQ tests pp-tard.
We only have to do it for the SAT, mugabetard. Official IQ tests are much less biased.
IQ tests aren’t at all biased, because by the very design and intent of IQ testing, there’s no chance or opportunity for bias to present itself. Thus, IQ tests, and IQ tests alone, should be used as measures of intelligence, *if* “intelligence” (as opposed to assumed above-average inherent social class) is what’s truly sought (it isn’t). That said, my sibling cracked 1450, pre-95, having had a very average middle class upbringing (public schooling). (Harvard waitlisted her.) Just my two cents (about all I can afford, at present). 🙂
I’m an outlier here. Lower-middle income family, SATs drastically overstated my actual intelligence (scored 2.5 SD above mean on SAT, only have 120 IQ according to actual Wechsler IQ test). Probably because I went to really good schools.
+2.6 sds on the SAT is much more than +2.5 sds for the entire population, because stupid people take the SAT much less often than smart people.
+2.6 sds on the SAT is much more than +2.5 sds for the entire population, because stupid people take the SAT much less often than smart people.
Correct. As both Ron Hoeflin and Charles Murray argued, only about one in three American 17 year olds take the SAT every year, however the higher the IQ, the higher the odds of taking the test, so among the gifted, virtually 100% take the SAT, and whatever shortfall there might be is roughly balanced by foreign test takers. So if Judah-sphere scored 2.5 SD (one in 200 level) above the SAT population, then Hoeflin and Murray would multiply by 3 to estimate the general population rarity: one in 600 (more than 3 SD above the U.S. mean)
Should’ve made that post less self-absorbed. I think the SAT if anything probably helps lower-income students because the non-g component of SAT is probably measuring conscientiousness, which differs less between the classes than IQ.
Supposedly conscientiousness has a negative correlation with IQ.
I’m an outlier here. Lower-middle income family, SATs drastically overstated my actual intelligence (scored 2.5 SD above mean on SAT, only have 120 IQ according to actual Wechsler IQ test). Probably because I went to really good schools.
It’s possible that in your case the Wechsler underestimated your intelligence. Although I think the SAT overestimates the IQ of high SES kids, that doesn’t sound like the case with you.
One of the problems with the Wechsler (as Mugabe has pointed out) is there’s a lot more room for scoring error. The person giving the test really has to know what they’re doing, and really has to make a special effort to be objective. The SAT is presumably scored by machine so it doesn’t have that particular problem.
Possibly. However, my SAT was taken with a significant amount of prep, so I’m leaning more torwards the Wechsler in my case. Either way I’m okay with my performance 🙂
the correlation between parents income and kid’s IQ is .24 +/- .733.
i guess that’s not “conceptual”/black lesbian math.
but it’s CORRECT.
I don’t understand why someone who is supposedly so smart has so much difficulty.
I’m not asking what the correlation could be, I’m asking what it should if we assume rich kids only score high for genetic reasons. If it’s much higher, it implies environment is playing a big role on that particular test.
Hey Pumpkin Person, off-topic but I’m sure you remember these figures https://brainsize.wordpress.com/2014/09/27/estimating-the-iq-of-billionaires-the-homeless-from-ethnic-demographics/ (i’ve been digging through and enjoying your older posts):
Three figure income earners (the homeless): Average IQ 84
Four figure income earners (part-time minimum wage): Average IQ 92
Five figure income earners (middle class): Average IQ 100
Six figure income earners (future millionaires): Average IQ 108
Self-made deca-millionaires: Average IQ 116
Self-made centi-millionaires: Average IQ 124
Self-made billionaires: Average IQ 132
Self-made deca-billionaires: Average IQ 140
Why do jump from six figure to 8 figures in this chart? Seems like it throws off the IQ equivalencies a little bit.
Good question. The reason I jump from 6 figures to 8 figures is after 6 figures, it makes more sense in my opinion to describe financial success in terms of wealth than income
Presumably people generally have the potential to be worth ten times their income so converting from income to wealth adds an extra figure
Makes sense.
pp makes the classic prole/libertarian mistake of thinking that wealth in a capitlist society comes from producing/from being productive. sometimes, but usually not.
michael douglas won the best supporting actor oscar. he deserved it. big time. the best vid i could find.
pp makes the classic prole/libertarian mistake of thinking that wealth in a capitlist society comes from producing/from being productive.
No I’m not. I think a lot people get rich by doing evil things, but the point is they do them cleverly.
Pumpkin, like how height in some populations are a result of evolution http://www.unz.com/gnxp/the-dutch-are-tall-because-evolution-in-part/ wouldn’t that imply that intelligence differences are due to evolution as well?
Well yes, but height is somewhat more heritable than IQ, to the limited extent heritability has been measured.
Also this argument can be flipped around. People argue that races must differ in intelligence because they’ve evolved largely separately for tens of thousands of years. And yet when it comes to height, American blacks and whites are virtually identical.
In fact, only a few years ago, respected media like the New Yorker were claiming that with the exception of the pygmies, all races have the exact same genetic height but that view is becoming increasingly untenable.
sounds jewish.
as pp has quite uncharachteristically observed, HBDers and hereditists generally suck Jewish cock. they love Jewish cock in their ass and in their mouth and spooging all over them.
gayman, cockring, shoe, pp, hbd slut,…they all crave Jewish cock. there are more than 10x circumcised gentiles, but they still crave the Jewish cock.
it’s funny because…
jewesses CRAVE BLACK cock.
and so do jew-fags.
I don’t worship Jews. While I’m happy that a high IQ group has adapted the world to their advantage so brilliantly (since that’s my definition of intelligence) I find it odd that they could have evolved such high IQs so quickly & without cold climate. They don’t fit neatly into the prevailing theories of HBD.
And HBD Chick doesn’t worship Jews. She famously praised Kevin McDonald:
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2015/01/on-the-hbd-chick-interview/
And please be respectful of HBD Chick & Kate.
I dont care what you say about the men, but I’m very protective of the ladies of HBD.
As David Wechsler said, chivalry may be dieing, chivalry may be dead, but it will not die on the WISC.
here it is. the top ten real estate owners in manhattan are ALL JEWS.
fucking GROW UP.
TAKE THE RED PILL.
BECOME A NAZI.
the holocaust happened. and it was RIGHT.
http://therealdeal.com/issues_articles/nycs-real-estate-dynasties/
PP, what do you think of that “growth mindset” stuff that people talk about and think that it supersedes IQ and innate ability in importance? Scott Alexander had this recent excellent post: http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/04/08/no-clarity-around-growth-mindset-yet/
which basically debunks a lot of that nonsense and basically proves yet again how environmentalists are quite wrong, having not a smidgen of evidence to back up their crackpot world-view.
I think the growth mindset (i.e. belief that effort is more important than ability) is not that useful.
While I believe most people can achieve most things if they work hard enough, for low IQ people certain goals are just not worth the added effort they have to give.
Murray is correct because the word ” affluent ” want to display in this context, which is a test that promotes better evaluation, individualized, of the students and as a consequence, directs them to colleges, post jobs that will be consistent with your needs specific cognitive, at all levels and finally, promoting social improvement, causing thousands, if not millions of people, can quantitatively improve their quality of life. It does not. Sat tests are methods of cognitive measurement and supposedly ” education ”, based on the same unilateral evaluation methods that fully account for the system ” educational ‘, solemnly ignoring the cognitive diversity that characterizes the human species. The idea that the tests Sat promote affluence is very relative. It can promote the social affluence of thousands of Asian students, newly arrived from Beijing, who came from societies that already use these methods not only to promote meritocracy but long-term selective patterns. A person who goes into a public concour, will have a long-term, stable jobs will have a much better chance of a family and to sustain it. The reproductive success is guaranteed, at least if not homosexual or is too shy to get some stable relationship.
In other words, these evaluation methods are forms of ‘eugenics” disguised, which however, did not select the most virtuous, but those that best fit the system and preferably are intellectually stupid people (technicist, not all technicist will be so, of course, but is a strong tendency) and therefore, are happy with the system that sells technological trinkets in favor of silence simplistic cattle happiness. In Brazil it is called ”voto de cabresto”, but in a sofisticated way.
Ay yi yi
The SAT is not at all affected by social class. Both my husband and I come from money and education and we both have nicely sized SATs, thank you very much, but we earned our scores through natural ability (neither of us have ever had to study hard for any test).
In fact I call the SAT Cupid because had I not done well, I would never have attended a school that allowed me to meet a man of the highest quality.
My baby sister was quite jealous but eventually did quite well herself. All the women in my family married well, and I’m raising my daughter to marry well too…not that she’ll need the help. Marrying well is in her genes.
you’re “well” is shit compared to your betters.
you’re either a chink or a trailer trash southerner or pp’s sock puppet.
“married well”…
a phrase used exclusively by prostitutes, and 99% of the time by non-white prostitutes.
What’s worse–that Dubya managed to score 1200 (with all the money in the world behind him) (he does not have a 120 IQ–it’s rumored that Senior Bush can’t even crack 100, and Senior seems significantly smarter than Junior, by my observations), or that Yale accepted him with only a 1200? 🙂
Stern is smart. Very smart. He’s relentlessly witty; he literally can’t be stopped or opposed. 🙂
Yes Dubya scored a 1206 on the old SAT which equates to an IQ of 125+.
it’s not that the SAT is bullshit…it’s that ALL IQ tests are bullshit.
but pp loves Jewish cock, so she can’t see it.
You’re full of shit.
Out of curiosity, how did these obvious trolls (not to reduce myself to name-calling, but it’s clearly the case) a) find, and b) latch on to your postings? 🙂 Case in point, the below comment:
“it’s not that the SAT is bullshit…it’s that ALL IQ tests are bullshit.
but pp loves Jewish cock, so she can’t see it.”
This individual obviously isn’t bright (and therefore couldn’t score highly on an IQ test, given the unbiased nature of IQ testing, and given his obvious ignorance on the matter–he believes SAT and IQ testing are identical in nature, it would appear), and probably not decently educated (and therefore couldn’t score highly on the SAT, either, given that the SAT is a *learned material* test (vocabulary, calculus, etc.), as opposed to an “intelligence test”). Why is he here?
Anyway, I’ve added your blog page to my bookmarks–there is some very interesting stuff here (though, as you and I know, much of it is simply what I’d refer to as “common sense-based,” though my definition of what should be “common” might not be). 🙂
That commenter is “Robert Mugabe”: he goes by several names.
He found this blog because he believes everyone in behavioural geneticists is stupid & is always on the look out for behavioural genetics blogs to harass. You can see him commenting everywhere (under various names) from LotB to Steve Hsu
He claims to be a participant in the BGI genetic study of brilliant people…claims to have scored 1560 on the old SAT (IQ 160) & a perfect 2400 on the old GRE.
Some people believe him. Others don’t
I’m glad you like my blog!
why wouldn’t anyone believe me?
i can forward my genome to you if you like…or wait then you’d know who i am…so i can forward the e-mail the BGI sent me with my name erased and my password etc.
then you will say “Mugabe IS in the BGI study.”
Callitwhatyoulike is just another example:
stupid people don’t know they’re stupid
AND
think that those who are SMARTER than they…are stupid.
Callitwhatyoulike is very smart. He did extremely well on the ASVAB, scored 140 on an official IQ test & his sister scored super high on the old SAT despite being middle class.
Why wouldn’t I believe you?
Because you still haven’t gotten your degree:
https://pumpkinperson.com/2015/04/02/get-a-degree-in-heritability/
But then passing my exam may require more than BGI intellect.
Thousands have read the post yet none have emailed me answers
People simply don’t grasp statistics; no matter how smart or well educated
calitwhatyoulike is a MORON. AND SO ARE YOU. (the ceiling of the ASVAB is the floor of the SAT…so to speak. it’s for retards who join the military.)
here’s the PROOF!!! (i’ve copied and pasted the e-mail with identifying info removed):
Your Genome File:
BGI Cognitive Genomics Lab
To
Mar 20
Hello Volunteer,
Genome ready.
Thank you for your interest in research into the genetics of intelligence. Though the project for which you’ve volunteered has been significantly delayed by obstacles to sequencing every volunteer for our study – obstacles which are not yet entirely behind us! – we’re pleased to announce that your genome is among the lucky ones, and now available for download at your convenience.
How is the research going?
Our processing of our volunteer DNA samples is taking significantly more time than expected, due in large part to unanticipated resource constraints upon our project, as BGI’s recent acquisition of Complete Genomics, sudden uncoupling from Illumina, and the subsequent shifting of all sequencing capacity into the new CG hardware platform has had a large impact on all of the BGI research projects, especially big ones like ours. This was compounded by a recent change in the local regulation of sequencing, which imposed a bottleneck on sequencing within BGI in general, though that has since been resolved. In consequence, upwards of half of our samples remain unsequenced at this time, and the delay affects all processing and resources available to us, as all samples are being shifted to the new BGI hardware platform, Complete Genomics.
This unanticipated hardware dispute has impacted our timeline, on the order of several years, as well as that of almost all other research projects within BGI – and we are entirely reliant upon the generosity of our benefactors. Despite this, we are not pessimistic about the ultimate sequencing outcome of our samples, or the completion of our core objectives, which include returning genome files to all of our volunteers. It will just take longer than expected, while BGI upgrades their machines to their new CG acquisition, uncoupling from Illumina. We have received unambiguous, written assurrance from the heads of our institute that we will have the sequences as promised, and at significantly higher resolution than the original study design, to make good on the delay, and to exploit the substantial hardware upgrade. In addition, we’ve also recently been authorized to perform some Target Region sequencing of samples on a smaller scale in the meantime, to confirm SNP hits from other studies upon other, independently gathered cohorts, which will also be interesting. This recently authorized, smaller-scale subproject is currently occupying most of our time, as well as some software development and Prosopagnosia Exome sequencing.
How do I access the genome ShareRoom?
To access your genome ShareRoom, please visit the below link:
Roomkey Link:
Password:
Please reply to this mail if you’re unable to reach this website, or your password fails.
I can log in, but I can’t see my file yet?
This is what is supposed to happen. Please don’t panic. This mail is to notify you that your data is generated and uploading to the hive cloud, which will take up to three weeks.
If your file is still not visible on the above SpiderOak RoomKey link twentyone days after this email, please notify us at that point.
How is the data being distributed?
The carrier for distributing your genome to you is named SpiderOak, which we believe is the most secure way to deliver your data. Your data are not visible to 3rd parties, not visible to SpiderOak themselves, and only you and the BGI CGL know the de-encyption key. SpiderOak is Edward Snowden approved, and has an ethical track record.
Please take care to ensure the security of this email, as it contains the information needed to access your genome. Once you’ve downloaded the file, you may ask us to remove the data from the SpiderOak cloud, as a safety precaution against compromise of your email, and thereby your genome data.
What is a 23andme file?
23andme is a common genome file format, which can be read by third party tools, converted to other formats, and used as input by PLINK.
https://www.cog-genomics.org/plink2/input
Sincerely,
BGI Cognitive Genomics Lab
Building No.11│Beishan Industrial Zone│Yantian District│Shenzhen 518083│China
认知基因组学 │ http://www.cog-genomics.org │contact@cog-genomics.org
THAT’S WHY I’M AN ALCOHOLIC!
Your “test” doesn’t even differentiate between H^2, and h^2, pumpkin.
Might want to get that fixed.
Thousands have read the post yet none have emailed me answers
How is that possible if Blasian and Kate supposedly e-mailed you their answers?
Lol………
Neither Blasian or Kate have emailed in their answers as of yet; hopefully they’ll be coming any day now.
seriously pp? e-mailing you is way too personal.
and i hate all people, including myself, not just jews.
how would you place a carthusian or carthusian manque in the IQ vs “success” scatter plot?
Oh, so they lied.
pp’s affliction is multiple personality disorder?
kenneth bianci tried that defense.
howard stern? you’ve GOT to be kidding!
he’s the single most repellent person “of all media”. he had a “penis beauty contest” judged by George Takei. VOMIT!
oh for Firing Line, buckley and hitch.
of course hitch went in for the jew bullshit later. he even claimed he was jewish. his brother disagrees.
i feel so ashamed as i’m at least twice pp’s age…i’m over 24.
but pp’s blog is the only hereditist/HBD blog that doesn’t delete me and ban me…that’s my excuse for being a “chimo” (pp is the chi and i’m the mo).
Your “test” doesn’t even differentiate between H^2, and h^2, pumpkin.
Might want to get that fixed.
Excellent catch!
I’m referring to broad heritability. I’ve now made that clear in the exam.
Good thing you caught that before anyone had submitted answers.
soon i’ll have to move to blogs run by arabs or other muslims as the jews have successfully brainwashed the goyim in the anglo-prole-sphere.
iran should have nukes. the US and Israel SHOULD NOT!
For the record I’m not a Howard Stern fan; I just think he’s more intelligent than his SAT scores imply. LotB has said the same.
one of the lessons from The Jinx is that even rich Jews are prole.
look into the case of Jeffrey Epstein.
so i watched all of the robert durst documentary/interviews. jew director (jarecki), jew subject (durst), and…
kate should have thrown her juicy (and stinky) pussy at bob durst. he had MUCH MUCH MUCH more $$$ than her current john.
and she’d have gotten the greatest sexual satisfaction when he murdered her.
Please be more respectful of the female HBDers.
I’m old school when it comes to chivalry.
pedestalizing women is gay.
if anything women are much more venal and animal-like than men.
Lol. It’s the truth: they lied.
Eccentric comment section.
Pingback: The effects of parental education on young adult IQ | Pumpkin Person