One of the great ironies about race and IQ is that the people who are most likely to believe races differ in IQ, average lower IQs. But that’s not because we’re wrong. It’s because the racial cognitive hierarchy is so obvious that any idiot can see it’s there, but only non-idiots have the creativity to credibly deny it.
The media and academia are constantly promoting multiculturalism and these elites may make more of an effort to brainwash high IQ people because they’re the future elites. Little effort is made to convince low IQ whites to embrace multiculturalism because it doesn’t matter what they think; and indeed allowing low IQ whites to dwell in racialism further stigmatizes it as low class, which is exactly what the intelligentsia wants. Further, low IQ whites might be harder to brainwash anyway because they don’t have enough brains to wash.
Another reason why white racialists may have lower IQs is that focusing on racial IQ differences shows a lack of compassion for low IQ races, and such coldness may indicate low IQ, because if the emotional part of your brain is lacking, the cognitive part of your brain is probably lacking too, because the brain is all one organ. I’ve previously discussed this scene from The Iron Lady which tried to link Margaret Thatcher’s lack of compassion for the poor to the onset of dementia, showing her go on a hysterical rant against the less fortunate:
Also, if you believe in ethnic genetic interests (and my good friend JayMan is embroiled in yet another controversy this week for denying them), then we have a natural impulse to dehumanize other races and tribes, and low IQ people seem worse at resisting evolutionary impulses (i.e. overeating, sex), so they should be more conservative on race too.
Polls suggest that about 10% of whites openly believe that whites are more intelligent than blacks. So the median white racialist is in the top 5% of racial conservatism (+1.66 standard deviations on a normalized curve). Assuming a -0.3 correlation between IQ and conservatism, we should expect white racialists to average -0.3(1.66 SD) = -0.5 SD from the white mean IQ of 100, or roughly IQ 93. I find it interesting that this is almost exactly the IQ of whites in South Africa, so it seems that extremely tribal whites score about half a dozen points lower than average whites.
A similar pattern can be seen with Ashkenazi Jews. Those in Israel are more openly tribal, and score 7 points lower than those in America, who are very racially liberal.
I doubt this pattern would extend to blacks. Because blacks are underdogs, racial pride among blacks is a liberal value and thus possibly correlated with high IQ. Louis Farakkhan probably has a very high IQ, and tragically, high IQ among blacks seems to cause a lot of racial rage against more powerful races likes whites, Indians, East Asians and especially Jews:
By contrast, low IQ blacks are easily domesticated, happily believe they are racially inferior, and genuflect to more powerful and more intelligent races. This is unfortunate because we need more high blacks to embrace HBD because they can only help their people if they understand the problem. Commenter Lion of the Judah-Sphere (a high IQ educated black) is leading the way in this regard, even thinking about creating a high IQ black sperm bank.
Pumpkin Person 
One thing I notice about some prominent HBDers is their cold, mean-spirited opinions on other races. IQ differences are real but it would be a mistake to consider IQ an index of human worth. This isn’t being soft; it’s being logical. I think mean-spirited people turn sane people off to HBD. Indeed, if you despise millions of people because they have lower IQs, there’s something wrong with you.
I have a suspicion that people who gravitate to HBD blogs are not only above-average in IQ, but below average in extraversion and agreeableness. So pretty much the least likeable people gravitate to this subject, which makes the subject look less credible.
This is 100% the case for me.
“A similar pattern can be seen with Ashkenazi Jews. Those in Israel are more openly tribal, and score 7 points lower than those in America, who are very racially liberal.”
Is that why they lobby for Israel so much?
Captain Obvious article !
(and my good friend JayMan is embroiled in yet another controversy this week for denying them)
Haha, is he really your “good friend” beyond exchanging some emails with him?
A similar pattern can be seen with Ashkenazi Jews. Those in Israel are more openly tribal, and score 7 points lower than those in America, who are very racially liberal.
Like asdasd, I would argue against the idea that American Ashkenazis are totally racially liberal. They’re somewhat psychopathic for an high IQ race, thus Jews are more likely agitate for policies that benefit themselves, whether racially or through other means. At the same time, they’ve historically been very concerned about oppressed groups like blacks, so they are liberal in that regard, I guess.
I doubt this pattern would extend to blacks. Because blacks are underdogs, racial pride among blacks is a liberal value and thus possibly correlated with high IQ. Louis Farakkhan probably has a very high IQ, and tragically, high IQ among blacks seems to cause a lot of racial rage against more powerful races likes whites, Indians, East Asians and especially Jews:
Per our discussion of black conservatives, we decided that they (black cons) have lower IQs than blacks liberals, which I initially found implausible.
However, the example of Louis Farrakhan may prove you correct. You might be asking, ” how the f*ck is Louis Farrakhan a conservative?” Well, the Nation of Islam is actually very conservative in terms of its views of women and gays. Additionally, racial pride in other races seems negatively correlated with IQ, given that it’s a conservative, evolutionarily familiar trait, so I would expect the same to hold true for blacks.
We first have to define the meaning of conservative: does it mean having conservative social values (racial pride, belief in the inferiority of women and sexual minorities) or does it mean voting Republican? There’s overlap between the two types of conservatives, but for non-whites, racial pride might prevent them from voting Republican even though they have conservative values.
By contrast, low IQ blacks are easily domesticated, happily believe they are racially inferior, and genuflect to more powerful and more intelligent races. This is unfortunate because we need more high blacks to embrace HBD because they can only help their people if they understand the problem.
I’ve known low IQ blacks in the “hood” who were Five-Percent Nation, couldn’t graduate from high school, and stupid as fuck. They were all racially prideful. I’ve known high IQ blacks who hang out with SWPLs all day that never mention racial pride. So I think that contradicts your last paragraph.
Jews-Black supposedly friendship is very new. Jews in Israël hate Blacks (sterilisation of black jews). Jews also have great role in transalantic slave trade. And if you are not convinced of jewish negrophobia, read the talmud.
You are a little bit naive, that’s cute.
However, the example of Louis Farrakhan may prove you correct. You might be asking, ” how the f*ck is Louis Farrakhan a conservative?” Well, the Nation of Islam is actually very conservative in terms of its views of women and gays. Additionally, racial pride in other races seems negatively correlated with IQ, given that it’s a conservative, evolutionarily familiar trait, so I would expect the same to hold true for blacks.
We first have to define the meaning of conservative: does it mean having conservative social values (racial pride, belief in the inferiority of women and sexual minorities) or does it mean voting Republican? There’s overlap between the two types of conservatives, but for non-whites, racial pride might prevent them from voting Republican even though they have conservative values.
They have social conservative values, mostly because they are religious, but blacks are liberal on economic issues and on foreign policy.
One way of defining conservatism is favouring the powerful over the underdogs. So I would only consider racial pride to be conservative if you belong to a powerful race, but liberal if you belong to a powerless race. Though in both cases it’s tribal & simplistic which might make it appeal to low IQ people in every race, though perhaps more so in powerful races given that conservatism is a low IQ trait.
Hahahahaa, this is hilarious! Hey PP, Misdreavus claims that we’re the same person:
https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2015/06/28/national-merit-2/#comment-70543
This guy is definitively stupid or dishonest(both?).
I actually think Misdreavus is correct about most things, but he’s definitely wrong about this.
LOL! He might have got the idea from Mugabe who once thought you were my sock puppet citing your “ridiculous name”. One reason people think you’re a sock-puppet is your name “Lion of the Judah-Sphere” is so over the top it sounds like the name of someone who was running out of names. Kind of like “Lion of the I can’t think of a name-Sphere”. LOL!
Lion of the Judah-sphere comes from my love of Lion of the Blogosphere and the fact I was listening to this song while coming up with a blog name about a year ago:
Does it make sense? Not really, but my handle sounds no less ridiculous than “Lion of the Blogosphere”, so I figured why not.
*no more ridiculous
Pingback: The IQ of the late great J. Phillipe Rushton | Pumpkin Person
At what IQ level do people begin to understand the concept of 2 overlapping normal distributions with different means? That’s the main question here.
At a low IQ level, people misunderstand this to be “all members of one group are above all members of the other group on this characteristic.”
it’s similar to evolution — at what IQ level do people begin to understand the underlying fundamentals of evolution (all organisms vary, some of that genetic variation has more offspring, etc.)
b/c at low IQ levels, the concept is mischaracterized & unappreciated (e.g., “they’z sayin’ we’z all monkeys!”:)
Alas, it seems many in the discussion of IQ are unaware (or simply unable to comprehend) key components such as “g” & over a century of academic peer-reviewed research — many would prefer to argue “can we really measure intelligence? what is intelligence?” it may be fun for them to talk – but they’re 100 years behind on the research, & on understanding outcomes – how well “g” predicts, what it predicts, that a scatterplot tells you even when 2 variables are highly positively correlated, an individual can still be low on one measure & high on the other, etc.
only certain IQ levels are capable of understanding, yet all are capable of discussing. Therein lies the rub!
At what IQ level do people begin to understand the concept of 2 overlapping normal distributions with different means? That’s the main question here.
Based on a few people of known IQ levels I’ve discussed this with over the years, I’d say this type of understanding is mastered around IQ 110.
I had one East Asian friend with an IQ of 103 and whenever I’d mention Rushton’s theory, he’d say “but that means I’m smarter than you, because I’m East Asian”. I’d have to explain once again that Rushton was describing only average differences. He’d appear to understand, but then a month later would make the same mistake again,
At a low IQ level, people misunderstand this to be “all members of one group are above all members of the other group on this characteristic.”
I was talking to a woman with an IQ of 125 (verbal > math), and she couldn’t seem to grasp that the average man is taller than the average woman, simply because she knew some tall women and short men.
it’s similar to evolution — at what IQ level do people begin to understand the underlying fundamentals of evolution (all organisms vary, some of that genetic variation has more offspring, etc.)
b/c at low IQ levels, the concept is mischaracterized & unappreciated (e.g., “they’z sayin’ we’z all monkeys!”:)
It seems people who don’t understand evolution say humans evolved from monkeys, while people with a good understanding say humans and monkeys share the same ancestor, but people with an excellent understanding realize that both statements are true: Humans and monkeys both evolved from a common ancestor, and that common ancestor was also a monkey (though a more primitive form of monkey/ape than extant monkeys), so monkeys are both our ancestors and our cousins simultaneously
”I was talking to a woman with an IQ of 125 (verbal > math), and she couldn’t seem to grasp that the average man is taller than the average woman, simply because she knew some tall women and short men.”
Yes, this conclusion is extremely common among women and people on general, specially when we are talking about racial differences. But i think human intelligence is not just observe consciously similarities, differences and contradictions patterns ( the principle of intelligence or one of the cognitive dimensions of wisdom) and many people simply don’t ”have” this real ”g”. And women, on average, are very vulnerable to commit this mistakes the basics of statistics or subjective truth (abstract). Logical-intelligence can be separated from math skills and i’m like that.
I’m little, very little obsessive-compulsive (more ”obsessive”) and i think there are people who like to understand and organize reality based on facts (and they will be little obsessive-compulsive too) while there are people who avoid make it by natural predispositions and they will be better to interact. Understand landscape patterns seems a masculine fixed and archaic feature but will manifest itself in average men by simplistic observations reasoning.
To urderstand rationality and empathetic rationality, intelligence is not enough, because many smart people no have wisdom (or even a kind of cognitive profile which do not limitates just differences between iq profile, but personality) to recognize with precision, useful, objective and holistic ideas, theories and facts.
Government policy deals with averages, not exceptions, and not right/left bell curve. That the distributions mostly overlap won’t change the approach governments have. And HBDers have no problem lobbying for government policy based solely on those different means. So, for all intents and purposes, it doesn’t matter…individuals on the right side of the bell curve who belong to the population with a lower group mean will suffer in society. And once a government legitimizes policy based on a difference in recognized innate group means, it only feeds further into the average person’s ecological fallacy.
Fake ”g” correlate with contextual real-modern world where school is important meritocratic tool. Like a crazy race car, people with different cognitive profiles compete by few occupations where some people will be in unfair advantages, because this people have right cognitive profile while there are many rights cognitive profiles.
it is true what you say about cognitive profiles (of individuals!) which can be very different & matter a lot:
E.g., SPATIAL > VERBAL (with above average spatial & solidly average verbal) can be an engineer – but that person probably will hate reading & writing, etc.
Our schools in the states seem to have as a motto:
“schools – for over 100 years: pretending profiles don’t exist (as in Spatial > Verbal, Verbal > Spatial, etc.) & pretending everybody can do everything – or else they’re not trying!”
profiles matter, but so does where the profile is – if say, 3D Spatial > 2D Nonverbal > Verbal & all 3 are below average – good luck! but with that same pattern & all 3 are above average = STEM scientist! yay!
Yep, i create some terms for this subject
Neurological culture= all our hobbies correlate with our brain physiological traits. ”Humanities species” tend to develop similar cultural systems or embrace similar cultural systems because it fit with their cognitive traits (psychological, pure cognitive, interactive cognitive or interpersonal). We express how our brains are (and their interaction with the rest of body),
Intelectual suffering = imposition of conflictive rules in the school or in every cognitive relevant stuff like job, like ”force a verbally inclined kid to over-enphasise their math weakness” or the otherwise, force people to be what they aren’t in cognitive perspectives),
Self conservation philosophical naturalistic principle = our strenghts are our way to survive. Birds fly, sneakes have poison and be precisely agile in their attack…. humans, in a ideal scenario, understand environmental circumnstances first to interact with it after. Mathematics use math to understand the world, verbally inclined use semantic analogies to understand and interact with the world, creative ones understand the world in a different way and interact with it in a different way of course, on average. etc etc etc
Yes, seems, humanities&arts students tend to be less sexually dimorphic (a lot of homossexuals and sexually fluid – specifically, humanities men who tend to be less sexually dimorphic), less primitive tribalistic (and more or equally cultural tribalistic) and this hormonal trends influence in their cognitive traits too.
Higher visual and non-verbal iq (and general iq) tend to correlate with testosterone (who alter brain morphology and in this case, tend to produce the typical man), in a diverse but consistent way, and explain why stems have higher percentage of conservatives.
”Our schools in the states seem to have as a motto:
“schools – for over 100 years: pretending profiles don’t exist (as in Spatial > Verbal, Verbal > Spatial, etc.) & pretending everybody can do everything – or else they’re not trying!””
People here in Brazil is abusing ”ritalin”. Stupid people can be very dangerous even when they are just trying to be nice and careful.
Self knowledge begins when we understand our strenghts and weaknesses and made the better about it (of course, less criminal&violent psychopath types). School is a horse trojan to convince people that school (lamarckian ideology) can made people more ”intelligent” by repetitive effort.
Without self knowledge and the individual rights to use it as ideal self conservation, education just create a bunch of desiluded and frustated people, most of time, less the ”high achiever”.
I sometimes wonder who is smarter: someone with a verbal IQ of 130 and a spatial IQ of 70. Or someone with a verbal IQ of 110 and a spatial IQ of 110. The latter would have a higher full-scale IQ, but the former would likely be more successful in life if he had the self-awareness to pursue a verbal career.
Pumpkin,
i think discrepancies in cognitive tests tend to express super specialization, where strenghts and deficits are very evident. This people know since early age, on average, what they want to do in your work-lifes while balanced technical profile ones will be more potentially adaptable in a context where general intelligence is extremely emphasized and super specializations are treated as pathologies. The chances to the first group to be frustating adult life will be higher if compared with the second group, the above-average balanced intelligence.
I think when someone score, even, marginally higher, what you exemplified above, and very lower in other non-directly-correlated cognitive dimension, this guy or girl tend to be a ”intellectually obsessed”, at gifted levels, a so called twice exceptional, while a balanced cognitive profile (majority of smart types) will be (on average) ”intelectually interested”, a typical ”average” smart with above iq (generally above 110).
Most of public exames in Brazil require higher general intelligence while i think super natural specialists tend to have obviously a super specialized cognitive profile, very good at some cognitive (or and intellectual) abilities and very bad in others.
Yeah, Racialists from smarter races tend to be stupid.
As for racialist websites, you can see that they average lower in education than others according to Alexa web analytics.
It is also evident in parusing comments on sites like ShamRen.
They think “Circumvent” means “to break” and that “Class action lawsuits” are an individual filing lawsuits against multiple groups/people (the opposite is the case).
Many also are just flat out incoherent and make more grammatical mistakes than grammatical successes. lol.
they don’t use big words often, but when they do, they are used blatantly incorrectly.
lol.
Any examples? Where would you place the daily stormer?
ShamRen, which of course used to be half-decent, but is no prole.
I suspect it’s that they are NOT antisemitic (pp has explained why that is linked to higher IQ, as opposed to other types of racialists).
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/stormfront.org
anything that has extreme anti-semitism is smarter (pp has given reasons for this).
Hence ShamRenners are Morons but “Stormfags” and Daily Stormers are not (although Stormers are absurdly mentally ill, by anyone’s observations);
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/dailystormer.com
(keep in mind, even so the Daily Stormer statistics look strong because so few are in school, they have the advantage of older people, more likely to be educated).
*now prole*.
and as I hit at, it’s gotten really bad education-wise….
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/amren.com
Most American Stormdunces aren’t particularly bright. Their concept of history, makes revisionism look professional and legitimate.
I’ll read some Stormfront threads once in a while, for the most part they’re morons, in my opinion.
Yeah, they’re not the brightest bunch.
However, I mainly read the Ibero-American/Latin American history/culture stuff, and it’s not awful, i mean yes, they shit upon the Empires that were already there, but they don’t spew incoherent garbage about how (‘yes, the Olmecs independently invented the wheel, but they don’t deserve credit, here’s why;”).
They rather talked about Aztec sacrifices, and ignored everyone else (they knew they couldn’t win).
One Shamrenner (and this was back when the Trumpkins hadn’t committed pogroms of anyone with an IQ of 80+), talked about Christianity being a “third world religion” in that it did not originate in Europe. People challenged him by mentioning Persian achievements and he ignored them.
and, of course Jared Gaylor and Mann Coulter are just awful at Math. I mean awful.
Gaylor’s talking about how “White turnout needs to be driven up”, Whites are 76% of the electorate, and 64% of the population, yes, the youth is less White, but how much less White? It appears he would be suggesting <40% (nonsense).
Mann Coulter's figuring of 30 million illegals being here doesn't take into account that rates of change, change.
When the leaders are not bright you know something is really wrong.
Louis Farrakhan has a IQ clocking at 105.
Typical Stormfront, White basement dweller is about the same.
Despite his Islamic affiliation, Farrakhan is a bottom feeder, when it comes to the Nation of Islam. The architects of the organization, Malcom X and Elijah, were much smarter.
I don’t have a beef with most “racialists” just mainly Mann Coulter/ShamRen’s crowds.
They are statistically proven to be fucktards, and it shows.
They “think” otherwise because ShamRen has “Renaissance” in it’s name (fancy I-talian word).
furthermore, they think Madrid is “non-White”….
and not even from a Nordicist perspective…
cuz they’re “Hispanic”.
fuckwits.lol. (see above for more)
Thought JS and Jorge would appreciate this;
lol!