One of the downsides of being famous is you begin to attract haters. An HBDer named “Misdreavus” (his avatar above)has been going on a month long tirade against me on Twitter. Misdreavus was heavily promoted on JayMan’s blog and gained attention for being a black gay HBDer who makes witty sassy comments on twitter. The fact that JayMan so effusively and repeatedly promoted him is an example of Rushton’s genetic similarity theory. Both JayMan and Misdreavus share sub-Saharan genes, as well as genes that cause them to believe in HBD while also both being extremely socially liberal. This is a very unique genetic combination, so evolution predisposed JayMan to use his clout to advance another organism who shares so many of his genes. Allow the great scientist Rushton to explain:
Both JayMan and Misdreavus deny such an evolutionary process exists but I’m a huge believer in the process, and that was one of the first things Misdreavus complained about, but sadly, he then started attacking my statistical work. In my opinion, Misdreavus has high verbal IQ and high social IQ (Theory of Mind), but lacks the self-awareness to stay in his lane when it comes to math. Back in early April he wrote:
pumpkinperson is a total imbecile. how many errors can you find in the test questions?
http://t.co/R9rxQcoLi5
— misdreavus (@SuperMisdreavus) April 11, 2015
It turned out there were no errors, and the test has proven so difficult that out of the thousands of people who read this blog, only one so far has been granted a degree in heritability from the prestigious Pumpkin Person institute of behavioral genetics. And no one has even come close to obtaining a perfect score.
A month later he wrote:
http://t.co/h8lHdepFoN
Well, he's a bit smarter than Richard Lynn. That's not saying much, but…
— misdreavus (@SuperMisdreavus) May 11, 2015
This is supposed to be some kind of backhanded complement but Richard Lynn has arguably contributed more to HBD than any living human.
A day later he wrote:
From now on, neoconservatism should be called “conservatism with Jewish characteristics”
— misdreavus (@SuperMisdreavus) May 12, 2015
This comment is ironic for someone who denies the existence of ethnic genetic interests. For the record, I’m not a neocon; I opposed all the wars in the Middle East. Canada famously opposed the war in Iraq. And I don’t have any Jewish characteristics except for obviously high intelligence.
Weeks later he wrote:
“Total mathematical incompetence” doesn't even begin to address everything that's wrong with this post: http://t.co/sxwornnbvH
— misdreavus (@SuperMisdreavus) May 28, 2015
Once again, no specifics are given. Two days later he wrote:
More stupidity from pumpkin person: http://t.co/A7AMY3uvtv How many errors can you count here?
— misdreavus (@SuperMisdreavus) May 30, 2015
He declines to expose any errors.
Pumpkin Person 
Does being gay biologically prevent him from understanding your math? What does HBD tell us about the cognitive differences between gays & straights?
Speaking of straight, I want me some Kate. Kate, if you’re out there, holler!
I think in a lot of biological gays there’s a feminization of the brain that occurs that elevates the social IQ at the expense of the math IQ. Add to that sub-Saharan genes that make his brain already likely social IQ > math IQ and the result would be especially acute.
I’m around. Just shaking my head at the low IQ of some of the commenters as per usual.
This blog is a troll.
Mugabe have reason about this person.
I’m not black. Although I do have some sub-Saharan ancestry, it’s no higher than the Boers of South Africa.
1) It is impossible for you to estimate a trait Y from a known variable X, merely by knowing the correlation coefficient between X and Y, in the absence of other information (namely, first and second moments, and only if both X and Y are normally distributed) — not even in the case where the correlation is a perfect 1.0 or -1.0. That is not what a correlation coefficient is for. Did you fail elementary statistics?
2) The smaller the correlation between X and Y, the more useless it is for the estimation of trait values. Multiplying Z(trait 1) by r(1,2) to obtain Z(trait 2) leads to absurd logical contradictions. For instance, imagine that the correlation between IQ and height is 0.4 (merely a hypothetical value). If this is the case, a hypothetical man with an IQ of 145 (4 standard deviations above the mean) should have an estimated height of 6’2″ (avg. height = 5’10” , S.D. = 2.5″). However, calculating backwards from height, in order for a man to have an estimated IQ of 145, he would have to be nearly eight feet tall (!). Do you see how stupid this is?
3) “Fame” (both academic and otherwise) is not normally distributed. Knowing that Jesus is the third most influential man alive (according to whom?) does not allow you to convert a rank order into a z-score. You would think this would be obvious to anyone who passed high school statistics.
4) If r(1,2) = X, and r(2,3) = Y, you can NOT estimate r(1,3) by multiplying X and Y. That alone invalidates at least five questions on your heritability test. Doing so results in error values that are so large that you might as well be guessing randomly. I don’t need to waste my time on anything else.
5) There is no such thing as racial genetic instincts. I don’t have them, and neither do you. This has been refuted so many times (both here, and elsewhere), that I see little point in raking a cinder-black carcass over the coals for the hundredth time. There’s a lot more bullshit where this came from, but I’m not interested in wasting my time here.
I am wayyy better at math than you, buddy. I have a degree in a STEM field from a university that ranks in the top 15 worldwide. No affirmative action, either — my GRE quant score is in the 98th percentile.
Also, stop complimenting yourself on your own blog with sockpuppet accounts. It’s painfully obvious. Nobody really thinks you’re that smart.
….
yeah pp’s a great example:
stupid people don’t know they’re stupid.
pp simply lacks the ability to see herself as she is seen by others. she lacks the theory of mind to recognize that she doesn’t have a mind.
another example for pp-tard.
i’m (C;T) for Rs1800497, which reduces the risk of OCD by 75%.
Another example of Mugabe-tard. Denies behavior is genetic, yet cites genetics to deny his obsessive behavior.
Nope.
If one variable follows a certain probability distribution, and the other variable follows another (e.g. gamma and Gaussian), linear regressions are pretty worthless for estimating one variable from another.
Imagine that X and Y are perfectly correlated (I.e. r = 1.0). Y follows a Gaussian distribution, while X follows a J-shaped distribution with nearly all data points clustered around 0, and a small minority of points clustered anywhere from 900-1000. This roughly simulates the probability distribution for “fame”, assuming it is something that can be measured. You are either famous, or you aren’t.
Now let’s see what happens if you try to estimate Y when X is known according to YOUR method. Assuming Jesus Christ is close to the highest scoring datum on Y, he ought to be somewhere near the far right tail of the IQ bell curve (the X score), along with all the other famous people. This leads to a scenario where nearly everybody is either 1) average in intelligence, or 2) a super bright genius, with virtually nobody in between. This is a contradiction. It doesn’t resemble anything in real life.
Even worse – in real life, the two variables are very poorly correlated, so you couldn’t reliably estimate one from the other, even if both followed a the same distribution. Not only that, dummy, you clearly used a z score calculator that works only for the Gaussian, when your variable is as far from Gaussian as you can possibly get. Different probability distributions require very different tables.
..
If one variable follows a certain probability distribution, and the other variable follows another (e.g. gamma and Gaussian), linear regressions are pretty worthless for estimating one variable from another.
Imagine that X and Y are perfectly correlated (I.e. r = 1.0). Y follows a Gaussian distribution, while X follows a J-shaped distribution with nearly all data points clustered around 0, and a small minority of points clustered anywhere from 900-1000. This roughly simulates the probability distribution for “fame”, assuming it is something that can be measured. You are either famous, or you aren’t.
Now let’s see what happens if you try to estimate Y when X is known according to YOUR method. Assuming Jesus Christ is close to the highest scoring datum on Y, he ought to be somewhere near the far right tail of the IQ bell curve (the X score), along with all the other famous people. This leads to a scenario where nearly everybody is either 1) average in intelligence, or 2) a super bright genius, with virtually nobody in between. This is a contradiction. It doesn’t resemble anything in real life.
Which is precisely why you NORMALIZE the distribution. If X and Y have the exact same rank order, and they are both assigned normalized Z scores, the relationship between them will be linear.
Even worse – in real life, the two variables are very poorly correlated, so you couldn’t reliably estimate one from the other, even if both followed a the same distribution.
Which is why I stated there’s a lot of uncertainty in the estimate.
Not only that, dummy, you clearly used a z score calculator that works only for the Gaussian, when your variable is as far from Gaussian as you can possibly get. Different probability distributions require very different tables.
You still don’t comprehend that I am FORCING the distributions to fit a normal curve, so of course I’m using NORMALIZED Z scores.
Just checked my 23andme from last year; I’m (TT) for Rs1800497. That’s why I’m an alcoholic
1) It is impossible for you to estimate a trait Y from a known variable X, merely by knowing the correlation coefficient between X and Y, in the absence of other information
Of course it’s possible, there’s just a large standard error around the estimate.
2) The smaller the correlation between X and Y, the more useless it is for the estimation of trait values.
The more uncertainty around the estimate
Multiplying Z(trait 1) by r(1,2) to obtain Z(trait 2) leads to absurd logical contradictions. For instance, imagine that the correlation between IQ and height is 0.4 (merely a hypothetical value). If this is the case, a hypothetical man with an IQ of 145 (4 standard deviations above the mean) should have an estimated height of 6’2″ (avg. height = 5’10” , S.D. = 2.5″). However, calculating backwards from height, in order for a man to have an estimated IQ of 145, he would have to be nearly eight feet tall (!). Do you see how stupid this is?
Aside from the fact that IQ 145 is +3 SD, not +4 SD, there’s nothing stupid about it. It makes perfect sense. If you’re guessing someone’s IQ based only on a weak predictor, that weak predictor would have to be taken to an extreme for it to make a strong prediction (IQ 145+).
And I hope you realize the difference between predicting IQ when all you know is height, and predicting height when all you know is IQ. Whatever is being predicted regresses to the mean.
3) “Fame” (both academic and otherwise) is not normally distributed. Knowing that Jesus is the third most influential man alive (according to whom?) does not allow you to convert a rank order into a z-score.
You’ve never heard of a normalized distribution?
4) If r(1,2) = X, and r(2,3) = Y, you can NOT estimate r(1,3) by multiplying X and Y. That alone invalidates at least five questions on your heritability test. Doing so results in error values that are so large that you might as well be guessing randomly.
I think you have a couple numbers mixed up there, but you’re correct that you can’t infer the correlation between two variables if all you know is both variables’ correlation with a third variable, however if you can reasonably assume that the correlation between both variables is caused by a shared correlation with the third variable, then you can.
Jensen did exactly this in the book The g Factor. where he assumed that the 0.65 correlation between the Raven IQ test and the Picture Vocabulary IQ test was entirely caused by their shared correlation with g (since the tests appear to have no non-g factors in common) and thus the 0.65 correlation was simply the product of both tests’ g loadings. This allowed him to deduce the average g loading of the tests by taking the square root of 0.65.
5) There is no such thing as racial genetic instincts. I don’t have them, and neither do you. This has been refuted so many times (both here, and elsewhere), that I see little point in raking a cinder-black carcass over the coals for the hundredth time. There’s a lot more bullshit where this came from, but I’m not interested in wasting my time here.
We can agree to disagree on that point.
Should have said 160 IQ in the above example, not 145.
Assuming about 106 billion people have lived since the time of Christ, and Christ was one of the three most influential, that puts Christ at the one in 35 billion level in terms of influence. Normalizing the distribution, that makes Christ 6.53 standard deviations more influential than the average human.
You didn’t normalize shit, dummy. You inputted “Q=2.857E-11” into a statistical calculator to obtain a z score (LOL), taking only the right half of the normal distribution as the area. Probably this one: http://www.measuringu.com/zcalcp.php
Are you aware that fame doesn’t follow a bell curve distribution? The vast, vast majority of people are not famous at all. We don’t see a case where the vast majority of people are moderately famous, with extremely famous (and not very famous) outliers. The distribution has an asymptote at both ends. You are a blasphemer AND a fool.
You didn’t normalize shit, dummy
You do realize that normalized Z scores are simply Z scores corresponding to given percentiles on the bell curve, right?
Are you aware that fame doesn’t follow a bell curve distribution?
Duh. If the distribution were normal I wouldn’t have to normalize it.
Look, I get that you’re very educated, but education’s not enough. You also have to be smart.
Everyone respects for your sassy comments on twitter. Don’t ruin it by marching authoritatively into concepts you haven’t grasped.
Percentile matching isn’t the only method, nor is it necessarily best method, of normalization.
Percentile matching isn’t the only method, nor is it necessarily best method, of normalization.
Thank you captain obvious! Now get back in your lane. Celebrities are talking.
Pumpkin have treated Swank like a worthless slave.
I CAN’T FUCKING STOP LAUGHING.
I have some pitty for this poor swank who is like an ape lost among humans.
Robert Mugabe / Jorge Videla / Manny Noriega / [3rd world shithole dictator]’s comments are the only reason why this blog is worth a read. Even your counter insults are bland and unimaginative.
I’m not sure if he respects me any better than he respects you (probably not), but hey. I might be a faggot, but at least I’ve got a much higher IQ than a pumpkin.
…
LOL! Do you realize the ONLY reason I’ve let Mugabe post here so much is because I realized there’s a large demographic that can’t follow the technical discussion so I need to provide them some dumb entertainment? I’m glad my strategy worked on you.
Lol.
I laughed pretty hard at this.
Hahaha, this comment thread is like watching reality television. Watching misdreavus get drawn into a debate on a barely well-known blog (sorry pp, it’s still true) makes me wonder what’s his/hers stake in this.
Mugabe has nothing to say other than a few talking points: that traits express themselves in entirely different ways depending on the environment; ethnic genetic interests are real (he and pp agree here, and I actually think they’re probably wrong). The rest of the time he just talks about how smart he is, delivers ad hominem attacks, nitpicks on minor points, uses various sock puppets to create drama.
The only regular poster on here that says anything interesting (I believe) is swanknasty.
ok ill add santoculto too, altho i have to reread what he says because english obviously is not his 1st language
Lol, people here (not all of course) are really stupid. ”Interesting” things mean ”things that i like to read because correlate with my PERSONAL point of views”.
Nor Swank neither Mugabe are talking interesting things. Mugabe don’t know how explain your theories a clean and didactic way. When someone talk about ”environment”, ”adaptation”, etc… this person need specify what she’s talking about.
I really don’t understand what Mug and Swan are talking about probably because i’m a complete imbecile in Math, but also because mathematicians as well many of linguistics, complicating what should be objective and simple to understand. All the time, we need to synthesize knowledge not only for others can understand but to we can avoid complexity what is not necessary to be complicated.
The problem about ”iq-science” is that despise completely about real and holistic concept of intelligence and use it to analyse people in real situations.
Pumpkin forget the fact that some people are just those who HAVE intelligence while others are those who ARE intelligent, live intelligence.
I’ll also just repeat my earlier comment:
The (overused) assumption is that the residuals are uncorrelated, which is what allows r(1,3) to be calculated by straight-ahead multiplication.
”Black gay hbders attacks me”
Sensationalist title.
It’s “gay black” not “black gay”
Make difference??
Do you like big ass like any typical low IQ brasilian ?
Pumpkin can you estimate the IQ of gregory cochran ?
Pumpkin did you have a big cranium ?
Pumpkin how what frequencie do you have sexual rapports with your partner ?
I ask this to classifie you in one of the 3 races of rushton.
Pumpkin what was the age of your first sexual rapport ?
Pumpkin what would you do if someone hack your blog and your pc and publish pictures of you on the blog ?
Pumpkin I hope you are of nothern european type like a typical wasp because that’s the way I see you in my mind.
If you are a skinny south european type I will be disappointed.
And i hope you have no glasses.
And I hope you are between 30 and 36 years old.
Btw misdreavus what is your IQ ?
I previously estimate it at 108.
This blog just jumped the shark.
Pumpkin can you give me ONE intelligent commenters on your blog ?
I have difficulties to find one, there is just me.
Lion of the Judah-sphere & Alcoholic Wisdom are smart, knowledgeable, constructive posters who stay on topic and contribute usefully to the discussions.
I talk about really smart people. If you look at the US average they are smart but I talking about people who have more than 145 of IQ.
And yes, I think Lion of the Judah-sphere is in fact one the smartest commenters but that don’t contradict what I say.
You seem hurt by what I have I said, are you ok pp ?
No, I am not hurt.
Pumpkin will you show us your face ?
Pumpkin did you fuck with hbdchick ?
Pumpkin if your IQ is <147, you are dumber than Robert Lindsay.
Misdreavus takes dicks in his ass.
Disgusting.
Can someone answer me I get bored.
You have just to enter a pseudo and a fake email adress to post a comments.
Pussies.
Did you seen the tv show The Wire Pumpkin ?
I personnaly think that it is very realist, except for one thing: blacks on this tv show looks too smart.
Pumpkin listen to rap music.
I’m pretty sure about that.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1cRQ8pS21-4
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O7iWorzvlKE
The most hardcore french rapper, just for you Pumpkin.
Cale,
SHUT UP!!
….i`m right again, iq-fetichisme create ideological monsters…
These little retards “think“ they are smart because “their“ “higher iq`s“. Little effort to appear smart.
This blog was funny, now change to a kind of bad joke.
Pumpkin,
for the last, answer why you say who are the youngest (precocious) hbd-research and now you say your age is in the middle, nor young, nor older.
I never said I was the most precocious or youngest. English is not you’re first language, so you only half understand what you read. What I said was that I started reading about IQ tests at age 12, made my first IQ test at 11, and was talking on the phone with Rushton by the time I was in high school.
20% of the recents articles pp wrote were in part cause by my comments and the message I have send to him. I have great influence everywhere I go , even when I am not serious and even when it’s not my first language) which indicate high g.
Just show some respect santoculto.
“Pumpkin if your IQ is <147, you are dumber than Robert Lindsay."
and then there is an article on Robert Lindsay that just pop out, how surprising ?
What was on it?
What was on the test that I made at age 11. Mostly verbal analogies. One of them really impressed my teacher and he made photocopies of the test to show to his psychologist friends.
It is _obvious_ that misdreavus is Greg. Same interests, same writing style, and even, on occasion, same turns of phrase.
Greg the scientist & blogger?
It’s interesting that Misdreavus hasn’t started a blog yet even though he spends all of his time on Twitter.
It’s interesting that Misdreavus hasn’t started a blog yet even though he spends all of his time on Twitter.
Who needs a blog when you have a large following on twitter? A blog is much more work.
Pumpkin, Going back to this old post of yours, I think Black Republican, Allen West, appears to go against the grain of blacks banding together to support each other, stemming from their tribal roots in Africa. His articles show an obvious disdain for black denial of african american underachievement and their perpetual disenfranchisement. And uses empirical facts to support his claim, which means, he passionately refutes black excuses to the T, like some what White people do, when it comes to blacks crying racism, especially the HBD crowd.
You can even say that he’s a self hating black. I for one, love self haters, because they find fault with their own group, and act against them. A Black HBDer would be in this category, and it takes a very intelligent black person to find the inherent weaknesses of their own ingroup.
Allen West is a moron.
Pumpkin said blacks have a lot of charisma, which East Asians generally don’t have, and for intelligence, it’s vice versa. Allen West seem to have both, and his phenotype is not your typical black guy. I also said, he seems to have a bit of East Asian in him. One of his daughter, looks quite East Asian, and I assume some of his friends are East Asians, given the pictures of some of the East Asian girls, who hangs out with his East Asian looking daughter. Or they could even be his relatives.
You can even say that he’s a self hating black. I for one, love self haters, because they find fault with their own group, and act against them. A Black HBDer would be in this category, and it takes a very intelligent black person to find the inherent weaknesses of their own ingroup.
My theory is that blacks who hate blacks are the dumbest type of racist:
https://pumpkinperson.com/2015/06/21/racism-antisemitism-iq/
Allan West is not dumb, and most self hating blacks are educated, and well to do. Self haters avoid their ingroup as much as possible, and side with the majority outgroup.
Self hating Jews are quite intelligent, more so than the average Askhenazi.
And yes, Allen West, would be a self hating. He was once a member of a White Supremacist, biker gang.
Allen West only seems a little above average in intelligence, which is the case with most black conservatives and self-haters. The proudest blacks on the other hand tend to be at both extremes of the black bell-curve.
This has been noted by Rushton, Lynn, Levin and others. Virtually all psychometric studies show blacks having the highest levels of self-esteem in nearly every category and that the smartest blacks (talented 10th) were on the whole no different. Thats why most high-iq blacks make no effort to assimilate with whites and instead choose to form their own little 5% caste of smart blacks.
Also, your claims about Jews are false. The smartest Jews tend to be the most loyal to their tribe, including the majority of Jewish intellectuals and geniuses through-out history (the biggest exception was Karl Marx, a massive self-hating Jew) since they benefit the most from Jewish Identity as shown by Kevin Macdonald and others.
Well pumpkin, homosexuality isn’t genetic.
http://www.mygenes.co.nz/summary.htm
And insist wrote a post on down low bruthas.
http://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/03/28/down-low-bruthas/
There is also no gay gene. Citation in my post.
It is true that homosexuality isn’t genetic, but it is also true that homosexuality is not a free choice either.
The idea that homosexuality a choice flies at the face of all biology and neuroscience. It assumes that sexual arousal is something one can turn on and off at will, and that anyone can be attracted to anything as if it had no ties to hormones (both beliefs ironically aid the left). Both of these assumptions have been debunked by biology.
If homosexuality is a choice then why do gay men have different brains?
http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1815538,00.html
http://brainblogger.com/2015/05/14/homosexuality-in-the-brain/
Homosexuality can’t possibly be a choice because:
1. Nothing about sex is a free choice. Sexual attraction is a biological hormone driven unconscious instinct (it doesn’t have to be genetic). You can’t choose how attractive you are, what your attracted to and how long and often you get aroused.
2. Free will itself doesn’t even exist no matter how you define it.
Both of these facts are why theories such the gay germ (Greg Cochran) and the epigeneic theory have been developed because they are the only 2 that make any sense at this point.
Also, the notion that blacks are more likely to be gay is empirically false. Most direct empirical evidence (self-report studies don’t count due to inconsistent results) point to Jews and people of NW Euro descent (including white america) having the highest percentage of gays with East Asians having the least:
REFS: Remafedi, Resnic Blum and Harris (1992) Demography of sexual orientation in adolescents. Pediatrics. 1992 Apr;89(4 Pt 2):714-21; Remafedi, Resnic Blum and Harris (1992) Demography of sexual orientation in adolescents. Pediatrics. 1992 Apr;89(4 Pt 2):714-21; Krieger and Sidney (1997) Prevalence and health implications of anti-gay discrimination. Int J Health Serv. 1997;27(1):157-76; Rust 2000, Bisexuality in the United States; Krieger and Sidney (1997) Prevalence and health implications of anti-gay discrimination. Int J Health Serv. 1997;27(1):157-76. Belkin and Bateman 2003. Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: Debating the Gay Ban in the Military)