As a horror fan who has run out of interesting atmospheric horror films to watch, I’ve been increasingly drawn to radio shows and podcasts by members of the alt right. As a horror fan, I am fascinated by the alt right intellectuals, because for some reason hyper educated brilliant white people expressing tribal views gives me the creeps. I think it’s because we associate white educated intellectuals with liberalism, and we associate tribalism with uneducated skin heads or primitive races, so to see a super high IQ white PhD eloquently talk about his racial interests makes my skin crawl in terror.
What struck me as I listened to this interview below is this guy being interviewed just sounds like your typical high IQ yuppie, liberal Berkley professor or SWPL as they call it in our circles…the kind of guy you would meet at Starbucks…and yet he has these unbelievably radical racial views.
It’s really absolutely terrifying because if someone this SWPL can have such tribal views, then any SWPL can. Your professor can, your liberal father can, your hippie son can, your best friend can, your neighbor can (and maybe they secretly do)! People like JayMan and HBD Chick think Northwest Europeans are genetically inclined to be universalist, and that might be partly true, but it’s not entirely true, otherwise the media, academia, and intelligentsia would not have to work so hard to train them to think politically correctly, but my God, when these SWPLs start reverting to primitive tribalism, it’s absolutely shocking the things they say.
All it will take is for one white billionaire to start thinking in a tribal way and encouraging his co-ethnics to do the same and I predict we are going to see the creation of a white nationalist state sometime in this century, because Northwest Europeans can be tribal too, and once they awaken to their ethnic genetic interests (if you believe in those), Western society will change radically. I hope I don’t live to see it.
Actually if the country becomes more mixed the more natural many “pc viewpoints” will come to people. Right now the media supplements a social circle: either prominent people one would want in one’s circle will advocate a viewpoint or people that “look different” will be featured on TV shows that play for hours in a house, serving as virtual friends. Once your social circle actually looks like that and the prominent people you meet in real life have adopted those views, that’s it…it will “come naturally.”
The FE is an example of this. The E component of the standard model, assuming high heritability, would have to move too far to the right for it to make sense. Instead likely represents some sort of multiplier effect that small uniform culture changes can bring. Both blacks and whites experienced radical change in response, and blacks experienced change at a somewhat faster rate.
The only problem is that cultural relativism has paralyzed the left. There’s not a lot of will to “police.” It’s not that there aren’t anti-Semites, it’s that not everything about any culture is good.
Capitalism should be about taking the best and dumping the rest, but that general rule is only being applied to one culture. And yes that could result in a backlash.
”…so to see a super high IQ white PhD eloquently talk about his racial interests makes my skin crawl in terror”
”Because’ you are black**
”think Northwest Europeans are genetically inclined to be universalist, and that might be partly true, but it’s not entirely true, otherwise the media, academia, and intelligentsia would not have to work so hard to train them to think politically correctly, but my God, when these SWPLs start reverting to primitive tribalism, it’s absolutely shocking the things they say”
Bingo, it deserve congrats for these perception!!!
Look for homossexuals in Cuba, ex Urss… they would lived well there*** Nope.
Welcome to the psychopath world!!
How can Northwest Europeans be universalists? I mean, Northwest Europeans include Germans and Southerners, two groups not known for tolerance. This current universalism is 100% due to increased prosperity.
If anything, Latin America, especially Brazil is the closest thing to universalist. I’ve never heard of Brazilian whites blowing up black churches.
” Northwest Europeans be universalists”
Just some them, a subgroup, are real universalistic, naive, simpathetic, empathetic, (recreational) creative… Nortwest europeans don’t evolve collectively to universalism. (25% of white americans vote consistently in democrats, for example).
– Jewish rule in this universalism path (because they use it as Trojan Horse strategy),
– Ideological meritocracy. If you are a conservative or just a contrarian, typical anti-system, in humanities (where culture are produced and imposed hierarchically), then your chances to be contemplated with some important positions in academic institution will be near to 0%,
– Urbanization = secularization,
”Pathological altruism” or just naive-stupid-well-meaning white people are a new way to blame whites again.
In white guilty, whites ”are” extremely bad people,
In the pathological altruism, whites ”are” sooooooo good people.
The responsibility is always for whites.
Brazil look universalistic because mixed race scenario, but mixed race doesn’t mean ”no race”, the otherwise, ”more than one stabilized proto-races” inside in the individuals. Brazil is a typical savage capitalistic society and most of the real ”leftist” are whites or off whites.
In true, many leftists are extremely civilized people, instead ”pathological altruism”.
Northwestern europeans evolved to be extremely civilized, i.e, functional adapted to interact and live in advanced civilization, but not to survive in a primitive instinctive (tribal) world.
Other possibility is that ”northwestern european” brains mature slowly than others (as well happen with east asians). Then, the ”neotenic” behavioural stage is larger than in other populations, if human evolution is based on neoteny (domestication + cognitive eugenics). It is disadvantageous for them.
Universalists and Northwest Europeans come across as slick sociopaths to non-Northwestern Europeans and it is perhaps an act to suck resources off the foolish.
Jews and East Asians are more tribal than any Euro group out there, including Southern Euros.
America is a phony country when it comes to tolerance. Repulsive, disgusting and ugly people who wear a nice mask calling for diversity is a strength, yet the USA is the most balkanized country when it comes race, social class and other categories.
Pumpkin, do you think dysgenics could play a role in a future developememt of tribalism (linked to low IQ)?
I don’t understand that tribalism linked with ”low iq” but ashkenazis are the most tribalistic population around the world….
Because you have not enough g.
In a same population, the lower IQ tend to follow more their primitive instinct like, for example, tribalism. But at a world scale, there are variations among the different populations because of the different way of life.
So, an Ashkenazi with 90 IQ is more likely to be tribal than a one with 120 IQ.
And to finish, I don’t think that Ashkenazi are the most tribal population of the world.
Commenter Mugabe says they’re the most ethnocentric but LOTB says they’re the least ethnocentric . I don’t think anyone really knows.
But it’s irrelevant because it’s not so much that high IQ people are intrinsically less tribal, but rather, however tribal a group has been selected to be (if you believe in EGI) the highest IQ folks in the group would be best at questioning & resisting the tribal impulse the group evolved, so it would be a within group correlation & not nessecarily a between group one
On the other hand HBD Chick talks about clanishness which she links to cousin marriage which is known to lower IQ. But I don’t know what she really means by clanishness & how this relates to tribalism , because unlike me, HBD Chick doesn’t believe in ethnic genetic interests.
Lower IQ people tend to be clannish, it’s true. Yet Ashkenazi elites prove this otherwise. Also America is under Jewish influence, which is why it is a country of fake acceptance and fake equal opportunity.
High IQ tribal groups mask their tribalism in the name of diversity. Low IQ tribal groups do not, and are very obvious about it. Just look at blacks when they attain power, they are very animalistic and tribal and anyone can see it. I see it with Obama, and all the other blacks in power. Jews on the other hand, promote tribalism in the name of diversity. It’s very obvious why Jews dominate America, and why blacks will fail and fail again when given power.
“Commenter Mugabe says they’re the most ethnocentric but LOTB says they’re the least ethnocentric .”
LOTB is a Jew.
Mugabe is, as usual, correct.
“I don’t think anyone really knows.”
But it’s really very obvious.
According to this link, dysgenics seems to be making people less tribal:
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.ca/2015/02/could-mouse-utopia-explain-political.html?m=1
But of course he’s talking primarily about dysgenics caused by mutation load. Since mutations are genetic errors, they tend to impair any trait that was selected for & thus reduce genetic fitness.
Dysgenics caused primarily by healthy low IQ people breeding would probably increase tribalism because if you believe folks have ethnic genetic interests, then tribalism is a natural fitness enhancing impulse genetically healthy people would feel like sex drive, but high IQ people are better at resisting natural impulses & questioning them
We really don’t see that in Brazil with actual racial violence. Neither do we see it in Mexico. Peru had a Japanese and French minority running things but it was never violent. I strongly suspect the reason why Japan isn’t an immigrant destination is because Japanese is too difficult for the average adult immigrant to pick up.
You are wrong because tribalism also increases when there is a strong IQ difference between 2 groups–black tribalism is way stronger than white tribalism, Malay tribalism is stronger than Chinese tribalism, German Aryan tribalism is stronger than Jewish tribalism. Low IQ people are the first to pull the tribalism/race card out.
”Because you have not enough g.
In a same population, the lower IQ tend to follow more their primitive instinct like, for example, tribalism. But at a world scale, there are variations among the different populations because of the different way of life.
So, an Ashkenazi with 90 IQ is more likely to be tribal than a one with 120 IQ.
And to finish, I don’t think that Ashkenazi are the most tribal population of the world.”
”G” doesn’t exist in the real world.
Ashkenazis cognitive elites who push zionist agenda and not ”90 iq” ashkenazis.
My question was sarcastic because i know that is completely possible there a tribalistic high intelligence people. The ashkenazis diferential is that they select the most tribalist (intra-tribal empathetic, inter-tribal psychopathic) than anyone.
To say ”ashkenazis” are the ”least ethnocentric” is a perverse joke, no surprise about Lion.
There are many ”intelligent” whites who are tribalistic, the only difference is that the proportion of ”high iq” tribalistic ashkenazis is very higher than whites, like, 8% of ”high iq” whites are tribalistic while 30% of ashkenazis who scores higher in iq tests are tribalistic.
Correct Jewish elites are very ethnocentric, just like their religious cousins, but they mask their behavior more nicely.
”We really don’t see that in Brazil with actual racial violence. Neither do we see it in Mexico. Peru had a Japanese and French minority running things but it was never violent. I strongly suspect the reason why Japan isn’t an immigrant destination is because Japanese is too difficult for the average adult immigrant to pick up.”
Because you don’t see revanchist culture here, it is very recent in Latin America. Mixing race helps a lot to reduce conflicts caused BY race, but most of violence here is obviously caused BY race, in a biological perspective.
The whiteness in Murrica is based on separation, differentiation, even hate. Is like jewish culture among goys, is nurtured by hate-differentiation. ”We are different from them”. Us and them mentality.
In Brazil whiteness is (still) rare and desired. You can’t hate what do you want to yourself.
In china and India whiteness is also rare and desired but hating or hurting other groups is more economics/class-based than hate literature. It seems verbal iq or an imbalance between verbal and non-verbal iq increases racism more than actual iq.
A high verbal iq is symbolic thinking that stereotypes and categorizes everything instead of looking at the specific details.
Looking at Hitler, it’s obvious the man had a much higher verbal than non-verbal iq. Stalin, on the other hand, wasn’t racist, just brutal, probably had a much higher non-verbal than verbal iq.
I don’t understand the first and the last paragraphs of their comment.
I came the conclusion that clannish behavior/racism and universalism in individuals is the result of higher verbal than nonverbal iq. Looking at hitler, it seems valid.
Northeast Asians do not look like they are very garrulous, when compared to Jews, and they are clannish.
Clannishness is more of a cultural attribute, which comes from centuries of tribal affiliations due to a lack of a proper civic organization of trust.
Judaism is a middle eastern religion, and its principles are very tribal. This coming from the Jews’ lack of civic organization (they were wanderers and had no sedentary place of their own until Israel). The same principles are found in Islam, inherently of Arabs.
However, what separates Jews from other nomadic groups is their lack of hospitality towards outsiders, that one finds with Middle Easterners and Southern Euros. They are completely tribal and unfriendly.Jews, however are more friendly towards outsiders than East Asians, who evolved out of an agrarian environment, which makes them more “beta”, more domesticated, and indifferent towards outsiders.
Modern civilization replicate the same evolutive scenario that subsaharians evolved because technological effort. People cooperate less when there are or when they notices less dangers in their environment and ”weeds” may can have more kids, who will be less cooperative like their parents.
My explanation for the higher psychopathic personality proportion among subsaharians specially, subsaharian men.
Less necessity to cooperate, more chances to oportunistic parasitics not being caught and expelled from the tribe and more chances to procreate more than cooperative ones and produce ”african nations”.
Is it a coincidence that both Jews and blacks are very much disliked everywhere? Who likes parasites? I don’t think anyone has a love for vampires!
Blacks evolved predominantly unconscious ( natural selection) to macho primitive alpha parasitism while ashkenazis evolved ”consciously” to collective high functioning psychopathy. But all of us are sons of past events, we are the product of predominantly unconscious choices by ”our” great-great-great granparents. Develop a strong awareness about it is a next stage.
It’s not their fault, they are just the product of nature.
JS, read Spinoza and you will feel no more hate(or may be not because it’s wrote in your genes).
Spinoza was a Sephardic Jew. He made his living making eyeglasses. I give Sephardim a pass, because they don’t come off as parasitic as the Ashkenazim. Sephardim Jews were the ambassador types, unlike Ashkenazim who has a snake oil salesmen personality.
If you want to read philosophy and understand the coming of America, I suggest you read Jacques Lacan, the French Psychoanalysis who’ve said many anti-things about America 40 years ago, which is very true today. He said Americans viewed healthy sex as a luxury, typical of its capitalism culture. And all American psychologists are the worker bees for the capitalists, not independent thinkers.
Using your stereotyping-logic, I can argue that the Sephardics are worse than Ashkenazis in terms of verbal obfuscation, unctuousness, and general untrustworthiness. Ever heard of Derrida?
That’s directed towards JS.
”It’s not their fault, they are just the product of nature.”
Yes, first conclusion.
Second conclusion ”if i’m danger for others, then i need control it and be wise to adapt my hobbies in a pacific way” OR combo = sterilization + castration.
One of the most important motivations of psychopaths (specially high functioning) is the parasitism.
But, is need pathologize sadism and unecessary violence to make humanity really evolve.
Well, Sephardim were killed under Muslim rule as untrustworthy mediators, and were also persecuted for the same, under Christian Spain.
Ashkenazim were persecuted and killed in Europe proper, because of their self serving interests that only benefits them.
Even if he was sepharadic, Spinoza wasn’t a typical Jew, he was rejected by his community because of his idea.
This and your previous post seem to be at odds, no? In the last 200 years surely there has been an enormous decrease in tribalism among whites — how does this square with a 2SD decline in g during the same period, if you maintain that tribalism and g are strongly negatively correlated? Surely if one could quantify tribalism, it would have decreased by at least 2SD itself!
”I came the conclusion that clannish behavior/racism and universalism in individuals is the result of higher verbal than nonverbal iq. Looking at hitler, it seems valid.”
Well, humanities generally is the ”realm” of cognitive profile H verbal, iq L non-verbal iq, specially low mathematics skills, while stem, specially engineers, seems to be a ”realm” of cognitive profile H general iq, H non-verbal iq and L verbal iq. Steem is more masculine and men are more tribal than women.
I still don’t understand. Clannish behavior = higher verbal or higher nonverbal and why*
I still don’t understand. Clannish behavior = higher verbal or higher nonverbal and why*
He mean the more verbal you are, the more clanish you have a chance to be, but he is wrong
Yes, but i still continue expecting their arguments.
Lion of Juda Icosphere continue spread their prejudice against people who think differently from him about ”anti-semitism”. Argument first, ad hominen just when you have substantial argument and not just ”oooh boy, they are ”anti-semitic”.
A domesticated jayman-fan….
You say that blacks and jews and etc. “evolved” certain tendencies above….based on what? Current social trends. Wicherts et al. already showed (and this is after responding to Lynn) that SSA’s IQ was ~80. Put into perspective; current SSA scores at the level of a white American in around 1940. Current SSA is much worse than America during that time period.
Not that this is surprising. One of the first twenty American physics Ph.Ds was black. He received the Ph.D from Yale. In 1876. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bouchet.
Stories like this were common during reconstruction. And the trend reversed when the North abandoned the project. But every time liberals have devoted the resources, the results have been favorable.
Humans are trainable.
Men and women are both tribal but in different ways; women lean more on personal interactions to determine their group and men lean more on superficial traits and signals to determine their group. To me, this suggests that men are actually more universalist, not less.
You don’t lost this your manipulation habit is not***
”Humans are trainable”
The same ”humans are all equals”, ”racial differences is superficial… because… humans are trainable”…
This huge variation of iq scores NEED to be proved in the REAL WORLD and not in abstract-statistical world. Someone who believe that iq scores improved 30 points or even was reduced 30 points in any nation (specially believe that iq improve 30 points, 1900-2010) DON’T know capture ”intelligence”, even don’t know what is intelligence, this knowledge wasn’t internalized the same way that racism concept wasn’t real understood by liberals (and by socially conservatives).
Those who believe that victorians scores 70-80 in cognitive tests, may be stupid, because if 70 iq range mean mental retardation, then is impossible that the average english men in XIX century had scores in this level (and it express technical intelligence)
Flynn effect correlates with evolution of improvement of cognitive tests precision and not something which correlates directly with real world (indirectly).
Verbal culturalized iq (not pure abstractized) or general knowledge improved because
– universalization of ”education”,
– popularization of television and internet (mass communication).
Verbal (culturalized and not purely abstract) intelligence may be raised because today, everyone (less in Africa or other very poor regions) can become familiar with the world news (general knowledge), many vocabulary words, anyway …
I think genotypic intelligence may be reduced since XIX century but generally, people who have fragile immune system don’t have many kids, even when they have the opportunity. ”Healthy” people know recognize fragile immune system people and avoid procreate with them.
Men are behaviorally histrionic because higher testosterone levels than women. The tribalistic women still will be less tribalist than men, on average.
”Not that this is surprising. One of the first twenty American physics Ph.Ds was black.”
Exceptions prove the rule.
DON’T know capture ”intelligence”
The fact is that IQ scores have increased by 30 points in about 50 or 60 years. And yes, IQ tests likely do not capture “intelligence.” IQ tests capture a constellation of mental skills…as I have said and as the evidence supports. The reason why an individual in 1890 would have scored 70 on a modern IQ test is because life in that time did not require the development of certain mental skills.
volution of improvement of cognitive tests precision and not something which correlates directly with real world
Based on what? GDP has risen. Productivity has risen. Educational attainment has risen. Those gains seem to correlate with real world results.
Exceptions prove the rule.
The rule is that every single time cultural resources are devoted to a particular cause that HBDers say is hopeless, results that HBDers say are nigh impossible, occur.
The tribalistic women still will be less tribalist than men, on average.
If one group bases in-group inclusion on personal interaction and direct alliances, and the other group bases it on traits that are, for the most part, easily altered…it’s easier to become part of the latter’s group rather than the former.
”The fact is that IQ scores have increased by 30 points in about 50 or 60 years. And yes, IQ tests likely do not capture “intelligence.” IQ tests capture a constellation of mental skills…as I have said and as the evidence supports. The reason why an individual in 1890 would have scored 70 on a modern IQ test is because life in that time did not require the development of certain mental skills.”
Right!! And i think because this disastrious standardization of different tests, where was used different mensurement… The problem is that there are various iq tests and psychometricians in the past and today still don’t standardize it.
I read Flynn Effect tend to affect the low end of iq scores.
Rushton say this scores doesn’t correlates with ”g” and Flynn say that ”iq don’t measure intelligence”.
”Based on what? GDP has risen. Productivity has risen. Educational attainment has risen. Those gains seem to correlate with real world results.”
Really** When i talk about real world i’m talking about ”genotypical intelligence” (biological capacity) and not fenotypical intelligence (expressed capacity, what do you do with genotypical intelligence, the technic of survivability).
For example, in 1876, less than 90% of british children was studying at school. In 1920, almost british children does. First cognitive tests, generally, was based on general knowledge (who is the american president** for example), part of ”fenotypical intelligence”. What your memory can retain. Genotypical intelligence is based on problem solvers (please mathematicians, is not just their precious math which can solve problems), problems of real world, what really matters.
”The rule is that every single time cultural resources are devoted to a particular cause that HBDers say is hopeless, results that HBDers say are nigh impossible, occur.”
Too early to claim victory. You’re like the pumpkin, loves simplisms.
”If one group bases in-group inclusion on personal interaction and direct alliances, and the other group bases it on traits that are, for the most part, easily altered…it’s easier to become part of the latter’s group rather than the former.”
And**
When i talk about real world i’m talking about ”genotypical intelligence” (biological capacity) and not fenotypical intelligence (expressed capacity, what do you do with genotypical intelligence, the technic of survivability).
Yes, but you are assuming a lot. For example, that there’s an innate capacity.
Too early to claim victory
Most IQ gaps around the world are environmental. When environmental conditions for any group improve or come toward parity, IQ gaps close. Many peoples considered “genetically smarter” than others were barbarians not even 1500 years ago.
Wicherts et al. already showed (and this is after responding to Lynn) that SSA’s IQ was ~80. Put into perspective; current SSA scores at the level of a white American in around 1940.
The study you cite got the average SSA IQ up to 80 by coming up with a bunch of arbitrarily rules that systematically excluded studies where SSAs scored low. Lynn put the average SSA IQ at 67, and even that is likely to be an overestimate because virtually all of the studies are on school children in urban areas which biases the norms upward since there are huge numbers of IQ 50 kids living in rural areas and not attending school.
An IQ of 80 is ludicrously high for SSA. And you don’t have to be an HBDer to see that. Even based on environmental arguments the 80 figure is preposterous since white Victorians scored below 70.
The study you cite got the average SSA IQ up to 80 by coming up with a bunch of arbitrarily rules that systematically excluded studies where SSAs scored low.
If by arbitrary you mean criteria assessed by independent raters and which excluded studies with samples of disabled people and people who did not take the test properly, sure.
An IQ of 80 is ludicrously high for
people who have many prior assumptions, yes.
If by arbitrary you mean criteria assessed by independent raters
Swank, independent raters are humans. They make the same mistakes as you and I. They’re not Gods.
and which excluded studies with samples of disabled people and people who did not take the test properly, sure.
Take the test properly by whose standard? Disabled by whose standard? Is malnutrition a disability? You’ve just excluded most of the country? How is that a representative sample?
people who have many prior assumptions, yes.
You’re making the prior assumption that this study is better than Lynn’s.
An 80 IQ is certainly too high
…based on?
Based on the scores of the ~1910 Anglosphere, and based on the scores of the African diaspora.
Which/why/elaborate…
Words like certainly imply a lot of preceding thought.
Swank, independent raters are humans. They make the same mistakes as you and I. They’re not Gods.
So everyone else must have made mistakes rather than Lynn. The people who took care to use a systematic method and had outside viewers made more mistakes than Lynn who referred neither to a systematic method nor to any outside viewers.
Conclusions that rely on convenience samples are only as good as the arguments used to generalize; Lynn’s ad hoc cherry-picking is simply less convincing than any systematic method.
We argue that their review of the literature is unsystematic, as it involves the inconsistent use of rules to determine the representativeness and hence selection of samples. Employing independent raters, we determined of each sample whether it was (1) considered representative by the original authors, (2) drawn randomly, (3) based on an explicated stratification scheme, (4) composed of healthy test-takers, and (5) considered by the original authors as normal in terms of Socio-Economic Status (SES). We show that the use of these alternative inclusion criteria would not have affected our results
We found that Lynn and Meisenberg’s assessment of the samples’ representativeness is not associated with any of the objective sampling characteristics, but rather with the average IQ in the sample. This suggests that Lynn and Meisenberg excluded samples of Africans who average IQs above 75 because they deemed these samples unrepresentative on the basis of the samples’ relatively high IQs. We conclude that Lynn and Meisenberg’s unsystematic methods are questionable and their results untrustworthy.
…
It’s only an assumption if it isn’t based on any proof.
So everyone else must have made mistakes rather than Lynn. The people who took care to use a systematic method and had outside viewers made more mistakes than Lynn who referred neither to a systematic method nor to any outside viewers.
Lynn’s method might have biased the scores down but Wicherts method biased the scores up; however because the scores are already biased up (only smart Africans tend to get tested), Wicherts methodology was more wrong than Lynn’s in my humble opinion.
Conclusions that rely on convenience samples are only as good as the arguments used to generalize;
Arguments are not science, they’re just your opinion.
Lynn’s ad hoc cherry-picking is simply less convincing than any systematic method
Less convincing to you.
We argue that their review of the literature is unsystematic, a
More arguments, no science
it involves the inconsistent use of rules to determine the representativeness and hence selection of samples. Employing independent raters, we determined of each sample whether it was (1) considered representative by the original authors,
Considered representative? Such scientific rigour!
(2) drawn randomly,
Drawn randomly from what population?
(3) based on an explicated stratification scheme,
Stratification scheme based on what variables?
(4) composed of healthy test-takers,
Contradicts point #1. Healthy people are not representative of sub-Saharan Africa because so much of the region is malnourished and/or suffering from diseases such as AIDs. Indeed the poor health conditions are largely what’s dragging the IQ down.
(5) considered by the original authors as normal in terms of Socio-Economic Status (SES).
The original authors are wrong. Just the fact that the participants were in school at all, in areas that were urban enough to be accessed by testers suggests they were above average in SES, and other IQ related variables.
In short, the study you cite is a hot mess!
Lynn just used common sense when selecting studies. That’s not perfect but it’s a lot better than making up criteria that biases the data up when the samples are already biased up because a huge segment of the lowest IQ Africans are never tested.
The largest most excellent studies agree with Lynn. If anything, the true IQ in black
Africa is even lower than 67
If someone were to actually go
& get a truly random adult sample of the entire region it would include people living in huts, people who never attended school, people who don’t even know how to hold a pencil, people who grew up as AIDS orphans…there’s an entire class of African adults who would score below the floor of most tests.
IQ 67 is when you control for schooling which is needed to get an accurate measure of intelligence on tests like the Raven , but the actual average score if you unfairly tested everyone, even complete illiterates, would likely be below 60
Arguments are not science, they’re just your opinion.
Then generalizing from convenience samples must not be “science” either. Which isn’t good because, according to you, these types of generalizations form virtually all of social science and medical research.
More arguments, no science
Science is a systematic enterprise; so yes, the argument is that whatever Lynn is doing has “no science” to it.
In short, the study you cite is a hot mess!
Your critiques here all apply with exponential force to Lynn’s method, which is no method.
And by healthy, Wicherts et al mean excluding studies on individuals with actual disabilities, e.g. deafness, or studies where the individuals were chosen because they were in poor health.
Lynn just used common sense when selecting studies.
The common sense of someone with a lot of prior assumptions, yes. Wicherts et al essentially came about as close as anyone can come to demonstrating that Lynn is, in fact, engaged in motivated reasoning.
If someone were to actually go
& get a truly random adult sample of the entire region
Several studies that were included are of more primitive and rural people…
Your critiques here all apply with exponential force to Lynn’s method, which is no method.
As I explained, just the act of being tested in Africa screens for higher IQ (since so many people there are too disadvantaged to take tests), so any downward bias from Lynn largely negates the upward bias intrinsic in all these studies. In sharp contrast, Wicherts bias compounds the intrinsic bias.
And Lynn never claimed to have a method. He was just using his decades of experience to give his best judgement about which studies to include. Did he make mistakes? I’m sure, he’s an old man doing a superhuman amount of research. Wicherts on the other hand is claiming to have an objective method so the onus is on you to prove that it is.
And by healthy, Wicherts et al mean excluding studies on individuals with actual disabilities, e.g. deafness, or studies where the individuals were chosen because they were in poor health.
Does he explicitly say that or are you just jumping to conclusions? And how well represented are all the most malnourished Africans? All the AIDS orphans who can’t even attend school because they’re too busy caring for their younger siblings?
The common sense of someone with a lot of prior assumptions, yes. Wicherts et al essentially came about as close as anyone can come to demonstrating that Lynn is, in fact, engaged in motivated reasoning.
Yes. Motivated to find the truth. Wicherts results make no sense because 80 is the IQ of “pure” blacks in America, which means that you think all the environmental benefits of living in a First World country have no effect whatsoever. I’m an HBDer and even I can see that First World environment makes a huge difference.
Several studies that were included are of more primitive and rural people…
Which ones are you referring to?
Why do you not read Wicherts et al.’s rebuttal, section 3?
He writes so much on this topic. Not even sure what you refer to.
Lynn is past his prime. I don’t think he has the energy to do his research as carefully as he should.
Though his theories are brilliant, i have no doubt he’s sloppy, contradicts his own criteria, & is biased, yet i think he gets it largely right inspite of himself because as i keep trying to explain, just the act of testing selects the best Africans so any bias by Lynn is cancelled out, and secondly, the biggest best studies agree with Lynn iirc
Another factor biasing the african IQ up is publication bias yet wicherts ignores this, even though he made much of it in his brain size research. So that’s an inconsistency by wicherts.
Another reason why we go with Lynn is that however flawed his approach might be, he’s the one source that’s looked at virtually all the races so he allows for an apples to apples comparison.
As I explained, just the act of being tested in Africa screens for higher IQ (since so many people there are too disadvantaged to take tests)
Several studies included rural, “disadvantaged,” primitive, “malnourished,” etc. samples. The draw-a-man test was frequently deployed…so you must be saying that a substantial percentage of Africans are too disabled to draw a stick figure.
And Lynn never claimed to have a method. He was just using his decades of experience to give his best judgement about which studies to include
Which is why it isn’t science.
And how well represented are all
See above.
Yes. Motivated to find the truth.
So “motivated” he utilized no method at all.
Wicherts results make no sense because 80 is the IQ of “pure” blacks in America, which means that you think all the environmental benefits of living in a First World country have no effect whatsoever
Yes, it’s not as though the blacks in America could represent a subset of the African population that were selected to be below average and subjected to substandard conditions for centuries, meaning that they do not represent the “potential” of the original population.
Swank – blacks belong in Africa regardless, and despite wherever African elites are found, the continent is representative of the traits of blacks. Primitive and underdeveloped!
Up until fairly recent history, anglo society was also “primitive and underdeveloped.”
“They are the most ignorant people I have ever conquered. They cannot be taught music.” Cicero, in writing to his friend Atticus, advised him not to buy slaves in England, “because,” said he, “they cannot be taught to read, and are the ugliest and most stupid race I ever saw.”
Bad argument!
Nothing has progressed in sub-sahara Africa, without the intervention of White colonizers.
Even Ancient Greece was evolved more than any place in black africa.
Bad argument!
All that separates the “progress” by SSA and the “progress” by Anglos is 1000 or so years of what may be luck.
Nothing has progressed in sub-sahara Africa, without the intervention of White colonizers.
Untrue, according to archaeologists.
Even Ancient Greece was evolved more than any place in black africa.
If by evolved you mean “reached a higher state of civilization,” sure. I understand the strategy is to lump the people of ancient greece in with anglos to achieve an ideological end. It’s why anglos are most definitely white but Egyptians are most definitely not “black.” You’re not going to be receptive to that critique, so here’s another one: Ancient Greece had the technology and scientific understanding that would have precipitated an Industrial revolution. It didn’t have one. Do you believe it’s because the greek people were more stupid than the anglo peoples that came two millenia later?
As for publication bias, if you had bothered to look you would have found that he considered the subject:
Thanks for the link. I’ll check it out.
“Arguments are not science, they’re just your opinion.”
Arguments are evidence.
http://thinkingmatters.org.nz/2010/05/are-logical-arguments-evidence/
https://hashtagapologetics.wordpress.com/2013/08/08/arguments-and-evidence-should-an-argument-be-considered-evidence/
Dear Swank,
What is clearly your point of view on hbd ? Do you believe that all the races have the same average IQ ?
HBD, as in the strong heredetarian position with regard to complex behavioral traits, is likely false. All the “races” obviously do not currently have the same mean IQ. However, there’s no real evidence that the group means differ because of “genetics.”
at least for me this stopped playing after ca 15 m in.
and up to that point nothing scary had been said.
but i do think the doctor is wrong. in developed countries outside the anglo-sphere, there are simply too few jews to make any difference.
a guy at starbucks…a yuppie…a putative doctor…
but he’s a moron all the same on that point.
but he’s right that the nation-state is the best polity, that the empire and the new world country and the old world country over-run by guest workers and their offspring or former colonials is a really stupid idea.
israel is an ethno-state. there’s the right of return for jews, but what are its immigration policies for third world gentiles? israel is a relatively rich country now. is it getting lots of poor gentile immigrants?
in other news, maybe some of my ancestors were spanish jews. then i could get spanish citizenship and thus eu citizenship. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/11/spain-law-citizenship-jews some were spanish…probably not. i can’t find a service to look at my bgi genome and give me my ancestry.
Creepy that it stopped playing for you after 15 minutes. It got incredibly disturbing after that. He wants to divide America into sections: One section for whites, one sections for blacks, one section for Native Americans. He wants all the non-white immigrants and their descendants to return to their home countries and wants all the Jews to move to Israel. He also favours a two state solution in Israel.
What a monster!
Who are you talking about
?????
The professor being interviewed in the youtube video in the post.
spain has sodomy marriage yet according to wikipedia…
Currently there are around 62,000 Jews in Spain, or 0.14% of the total population. Most are arrivals in the past century, while some are descendants of earlier Spanish Jews. Approximately 80,000 Jews are thought to have lived in Spain on the eve of the Spanish Inquisition.
is that .14% reponsible for spain’s gay marriage?
the republic of ireland has only about 300 jews, and it’s people recently approved gay marriage.
…its people…
it makes sense to blame the excesses of liberalism on jews in america or even the uk, canada, ANZ, and south africa, but it makes no sense in the rest of the developed world. it just have too few jews. htiler did a good job. and after the ussr ended most of its jews left for israel or the us, not western europe.
France ? 3rd jewish pop in the world but anyway…
Again???
Globalization increase hierarchy of Murrica around the world. If you dominate Murrica, you dominate tha’ world.
france’s jews are at least 2/3ds sephardic. they’re from algeria, morocco, and tunisia.
and its ashkenazi jews may tend to be orthodox and thus insular and poor. idk. that’s my impression.
jews did play a ridiculously large role in the fall of apartheid even though south africa’s jews are more orthodox than those of other developed countries.
and the bolshies weren’t as jewish as tyher nazis might have thought especially after the 17th party congress.
stalin wanted all jewish and jewish sounding names removed from pravda…so as not to antagonize hitler.
iirc after some time in the 30s the only jew in the inner circle, the central committee, was the illiterate son of a cobbler Lazar Kaganovich, who like Molotov lived into his 90s and was a true believer to the end.
jews did play a ridiculously large role in the fall of apartheid even though south africa’s jews are more orthodox than those of other developed countries.
Maybe, though Joe Slovo was a Commie
Ireland might be liberal on gay issues but they’re hyper-conservative on racial issues. They’re something like 94% white
http://whitegenocideproject.com/immigrants-make-irish-better-looking-says-politician/
Gay acceptance is probably just caused by the Flynn effect making people less religious & less cruel to people who are born that way. Also, the tabloid talk show craze of the 1980s & 90s had a huge effect (Donahue, Oprah, Ricki Lake, Jerry Springer)
Mutation load might be causing more people to be born gay too
”Ireland might be liberal on gay issues but they’re hyper-conservative on racial issues.”
hihihihihi”, i’m like that, because homossexuality is like a implosion while racial mixing in large scale is like expansion of this universe, completely disastrious.
”Mutation load might be causing more people to be born gay too”
I think if i born in 1910, i I would have married a woman and had a family. Remember, environment + genes-biology and not just genes-biology.
II would like to marry a white woman or at least a woman who looked like me, but
– I’m addicted to gay sex, because I can be addicted to anything, it is the bad side of the hyper focus, baby !!
– The Brazilian environment is bad to have a child, especially if resemble father !!
Today, a large number of young people are starting the homosexual life, too soon. Being homosexual or rather act as one, it is becoming very dangerous. And I’m cute, the homos go crazy to me. That’s pretty disgusting when I finish I masturbate I’m disgusted with myself because my hyper rational mind knows that this standard of living will do not make long-term well, at least if it is awarded a self system immune, robust, I have not.
If there was romantic love, I could engage myself in this, but does not exist or is very rare. I’m doing the homo transition to straight, I’ll re-educate me. Similarly way I started doing exercises routinely, since 2010, I began to stop eating meat, there is a month and since I started dramatically reduce the consumption of sugar. I do not know how long I will live but I’ll try.
I see that I have no chance to compete with alpha men, then I’ll get into some religious affiliation (or Greenpeace, I know that 90% of greenpeace activists are women. Peta too). And I’m addicted to sex as well, since forever, I began to read or at least skim through sexuality books Masters and Johnson since I was 12 years old.
I think homossexuality men increase because when population increases, variability happens, like Darwin said.
Marranos**
Pumpkin – In LoftB, Meriprolestan is a place full of dumb & materialistic proles, devoid of any sophisticated thinking. This is the only reason why it is terrifying for anyone not belonging to this category, which is about 99% of the population.
right again.
This is his most recent photo of his recent trip to this place full of millionaires:
There is nothing impressive or spectacular about it. Just a fake posturing of status. Only in Meriprolestan, where a cardboard house becomes a big prize, because some rich person said it is.
I can travel to parts of Canada and Europe on a discount and see more impressive things.
Swanky,
to be honest and say ”i don’t believe in any hbd stuff”. Will better.
Ad reductio ( what is it? Harry Potter Magic??). ”Barbarians” was likely far to be this caveman what you are thinking.
”genetically smarter”, you use quotas to write it. It seems mean something about what you don’t want reveal for us and be honest.
Human identity is a ”social construct”**
I’m not sure if I understand the point all of this discussion over African IQ samples. I would ask: do elite Africans (average IQ 100) perform as well as elite whites (average IQ 130)? If they complete, say, Calculus 1 and 2 in high school, and rigorous engineering degree programs in university at the same rate as elite whites, then we know for sure that African IQ data is bullshit, because obviously 100 IQ in Africa means something totally different than 100 IQ in Europe or America. But if 100 IQ Africans are struggling to pass pre-calc in high school and they’re completing “engineering tech” degrees that are being called engineering, then it’s likely 100 IQ in Africa = 100 in the West. Voila! Problem solved…
Although Trumpkins, White Nationalists, etc. are all proven to be intellectual dolts, generally speaking, the Alt-Right is possibly a tad different.
Although their “trolling” or attempts at humor are just stupid meaningless memes with that damn frog (like what Santo posts) are just caricatures (not as witty/IQ needing), I’d suspect some have higher Spatial IQs, since many are Computer types.
But their verbal IQ is seriously lacking.
And yes, PP it is like a horror story.
That has been my thoughts exactly.
IQ aside…………..
they’re retarded;
1. Syrians (genetic links, from me and Mugabe, physical appearance, the fact that we fucked up their country)
2. Hispanics, DO assimilate quite well, at least according to Lindsay. AND many are White.
3. Lies about immigration levels, Mann Coulter can’t seem to understand that rates of change, change, in her hocus pocus about their being “30 million illegals”.
Being a “con man” does not require too high of an IQ. I mean, I see no reason to believe,
Dump, Mann, Gaylor, Moly-Jew, and the rest, are any smarter than your average Nigerian scammer (IQ in the 70s?).
“2. Hispanics, DO assimilate quite well, at least according to Lindsay. AND many are White.”
Then Lindsay is wrong.
At best they assimilate well by American standards.
But that’s not saying anything. Assimilation/”the melting pot” is yet another of the exceptionalists’ myths.
but don’t you get it, guy…..
the Alt-Reichers are the exceptionalists…..
they love their Euro buddies and sheit, but just can’t stand to look at someone with a different skin color.
So they wrap it up not as their own fucktarness but as ‘Murica.
I.E. Gaylor said;
“We do not Muds coming here, we need (insert 667, 195, 687, 659 “praising” adjectives) Whites, *who will assimilate to our culture*.
These fucktards believe their is one “European Culture”.
I say try them all for treason and publicly execute them.
How’s that for “Euro Culture”?
but seriously, guy….
come on…………
not understanding anything other than Linear Mathematics is a bit odd for a “genius” like Mann.
Gaylor believing in his low IQ absolutist bullshit (Egyptians were White, anybody who ever did anything positive is White. Why? Because I’m White).
These people are so fucking impressionable.
“but don’t you get it, guy…..
Because I don’t agree with you on every single point?
Yes, WNism/vast majority of WNs are retarded. This is obvious to anyone who has ever read a book.
Alt-righters aren’t very exceptionalists as far as America is concerned. Lolbertarians and more devout neo-cons take that cake.
Willy’s decently smart, and he’s made some good posts. But he’s too caught up on poking the alt-right with a stick to think outside of 2 dimensions.
A time traveler brought back footage of the first Trump-Clinton debate………………
“Brillant, educated Whites”.
I’m so tired of the PC GOP not allowing people with IQs of 90+ saying what we are all thinking;
“Low IQ trailer trash who are responsible for their own failures, and are childishly blaming Mexicans and Muslims!”
After seeing how the first debate ended, this is hilarious.
“All it will take is for one white billionaire to start thinking in a tribal way and encouraging his co-ethnics to do the same and I predict we are going to see the creation of a white nationalist state sometime in this century, because Northwest Europeans can be tribal too, and once they awaken to their ethnic genetic interests (if you believe in those), Western society will change radically. I hope I don’t live to see it.”
PP don’t worry. WN don’t have good leadership. A white ethnostate, or even any kind of ethnostate, is not likely in today’s world.
Theres no such thing as a “racially or ethnically pure country” (whatever “purity” means in this context.
Not to mention I don’t think they’re too intelligent. I read a lot of things from the alt right and WN. A lot of them are not intelligent, despite their “Aryan master race” quotations.
The USA is very large country with agreeable climate (unlike that of Canada), which is conducive to racial segregation like a White ethnostate. If not, there’s plenty of states that are very White like Montana. New England is even Whiter, yet no one thinks of it as White, because it’s where the Yankee elites are from.
The future of America is what America was. Not only is it very prole in culture, the country was and still, will continue to be defined with racial conflict.