Commenter Swank posted a link that lead me to an excellent large-scale study where Swedish young men (ages 18-20) were adopted and compared to their same age genetic relatives who grew up in different homes. What the study found was that being raised by educated parents increases IQ, even in young adulthood, even when you control for genetic background.
The study ranked the education of the parents on a scale of 1 to 5. I’m not sure how this scale worked because I don’t have access to the full study, but you can imagine how such a scale might look in the United States:
Level 5 = Advanced university degree
Level 4 = University degree
Level 3 = High school diploma
Level 2 = 8th grade education
Level 1 = Less than an 8th grade education
The study found that each additional level of parental education added about 1.83 IQ points (1.71 to 1.94) to the young man’s IQ (controlling for the young man’s genetics).
What this study seems to suggest is that if you have a pair of identical twins, and one of them is raised by a seventh grade dropout (level 1 education?) and the other is raised by a PhD (level 5 education?), then by the time they are 19, the one raised by the PhD should score 7 IQ points higher.
Does this mean we should start subtracting IQ points from people raised in educated homes and adding IQ points to people raised in uneducated homes? Probably not because most people are not adopted, and so the extra IQ points caused by their educated parents correlate with the high IQ genes they inherited from their educated parents. So while differences in parental education widens the absolute gap between people raised in different homes, they don’t much change the rank order for non-adopted people, and IQ is a measure of rank order, not absolute differences.
It’s worth noting that the vast majority of Americans are not raised by PhDs or seventh grade dropouts, so that’s quite an extreme case. Randomly selected Americans would not differ anywhere near that much in parental education levels, so such differences would not significantly contribute to IQ variation, except perhaps on tests like the SAT, where socioeconomic effects are suspected to be more pronounced (though this is controversial).
Although being raised by more educated parents props up IQ, that’s not the same as saying it props up intelligence. I suspect being raised by educated parents exposes kids to more cultural experiences, which increases their performance on measures of knowledge and vocabulary. Educated parents probably also encourage their kids to stay in school longer, and train them to value intellectual tasks like sitting still and concentrating, and such attitudes can add a few extra points on IQ tests, but they don’t reflect genuine gains in intelligence. Further, these effects are probably large in childhood, but become small in late adolescence as this study shows. I suspect if there were a followup study at age 40, the effect would have all but vanished.
Only when environment increases the biological environment, particularly in the prenatal stage, do the IQ gains tend to reflect a genuine rise in intelligence. This is because intelligence appears to be an overwhelmingly physiological variable, that is not amenable, to any significant degree, to psychological intervention, except perhaps in the most extreme of cases. That doesn’t mean the way you raise your kids is irrelevant, but it’s perhaps, largely irrelevant to intelligence.
Pumpkin Person 
not too surprising . If IQ is 70% genetic an 30% biological, then we would expect to see a modest gain in IQ from having highly educated parents
Eh ? What is your IQ ? 200 ?
”Training since when they were fetus”
Malcolm Gladwell
pls use better language, effects imply causality, this is just correlation
No it is causal. The reason you normally can’t infer that being raised in an educated home causes higher IQ is that kids not only share their parents’ environment, but their genes, so you don’t know whether their IQs are caused by their environment or their genes.
But this was an adoption study so causation can be inferred, but the effect is small.
Actually the media have been sympathetic to Syrian migrants, because they are affable, and in terms of HBD, Arabs can contribute to society. So the truth comes out.
The sub saharan sociopaths migrate to Europe to become parasites only, and they are all men, not guys who are married or have children. Many reporters don’t want to get close to them, because of their disagreeable nature.
yes. if only les etats unis merdeux had the problem of arab immigrants.
islam, in the geographic sense, was AHEAD of europe for a few centuries.
i mean…
the one european country which expelled its muslims was for the next century and a half the richest and most powerful country on earth.
there’s a reason that Bolivians speak Spanish!!!
that might’ve been a bit confusing.
SPAIN was the one European country which had been conquered by the “sand niggers”, BUT…
following the expulsion of the sand niggers (and the the Jews in 1492), SPAIN was for the next sesqui-century like the British were from 1800 to 1950 or 1750 to 1900 or whatever.
SPAIN was THE world power.
reminds me:
Swank’s article seems completely fucking useless, there seems to be no correction for parent’s race and genetic confounds.
It’s an adoption study where the siblings raised in different homes are used as a control for genetic confounds.
Does it account for measurement error? The heritability of personality traits is .8, like with most things. Any studies which have less than that have NOT corrected for measurement error. This is what JayMan found in his meta-analysis of twin studies. Any studies with heritability findings of less than .8 are garbage and haven’t been corrected for measurement error.
If anything, failing to account for measurement error would underestimate environmental effects in this particular study design. But this study doesn’t necessarily contradict the heritability studies, because it only found a small effect for family environment. More significant was the study showing large prenatal environment effects, though that study was small and has not been well replicated.
peepee’s most and third most recent posts are a bullet in the back of the head of hereditism.
but she was brain dead already.
The placenta twin study was devastating for hereditism especially since it was done on adults and thus can’t be dismissed
But the sample size was small so it could have been a fluke result
wai sounds chinese.
peepee should really “quote” from injuns.
injun speak, sanskrit, is so akin to euro speak, and the injuns’ thought is, whereas the chinks’ thought is not.
compare the Bhagavad Gita to the Tao te Ching???
there is NO comparison.
Just read this post, i get it so great academic parenting is the equivalent of waering hi IQ boots. the extra 7 points is a fake ,intelligence increase
I’m guessing being raised by educated parents helps you do better on the less g-loaded questions, thus artificially boosting your IQ.
an artificial boost is still a boost, and will therefore help said person being boosted be more successful in life compared to his or her peers.
Hi Pumpkinperson,
I have been following your blog for a while, and would like to ask several questions?
Firstly, regarding the split between Non-Verbal intelligence and Verbal intelligence, ie. visuospatial versus social, it has been noted that autistics and those with Asperger’s syndrome, where visuo-spatial, i.e. Raven’s scores, significantly outpace the WAIS/WISC, general intelligence tests, which indicates that there is a lopsidedness. But what about the reverse case? (i.e. Lindsay) Is there a theory as to what form of mental condition could lead to that? -His writings obviously indicate a level of verbal intelligence far greater than his purported mathematical ability.
Secondly, could you recommend any articles/posts/studies regarding the split between verbal and non-verbal? I would like to know more.
Finally, and perhaps more selfishly, could you tell me if this test, http://iqtest.dk/, seems like a decent substitute for a raven’s test?
-Regards,
Arctus
I have been following your blog for a while, and would like to ask several questions?
Firstly, regarding the split between Non-Verbal intelligence and Verbal intelligence, ie. visuospatial versus social, it has been noted that autistics and those with Asperger’s syndrome, where visuo-spatial, i.e. Raven’s scores, significantly outpace the WAIS/WISC, general intelligence tests, which indicates that there is a lopsidedness.
I used to read that folks with aspergers had verbal> spatial profile, though the research seems a bit contradictory.
But what about the reverse case? (i.e. Lindsay) Is there a theory as to what form of mental condition could lead to that? -His writings obviously indicate a level of verbal intelligence far greater than his purported mathematical ability.
I wouldn’t equate mathematical ability with spatial ability. Without commenting on Lindsay specifically, there have been many possible causes of verbal > spatial performance. These include:
1) Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry
2) high general intelligence, which is more correlated with verbal than spatial
3) prenatal malnurtrion
4) right hemisphere brain damage
5) William’s syndrome
6) dementia
7) emotional disturbances
8) high achievement motivation
9) educated parents
10) Turner’s syndrome
Secondly, could you recommend any articles/posts/studies regarding the split between verbal and non-verbal? I would like to know more.
Books about the Wechsler intelligence scales usually discuss it
Finally, and perhaps more selfishly, could you tell me if this test, http://iqtest.dk/, seems like a decent substitute for a raven’s test?
It’s too long for me to look at. I don’t doubt it’s an okay substitute, but the real challenge for these online tests is getting accurate norms. Also, these online tests invalidate the real Raven test because now people will have a practice effect.
Autistics with higher non-verbal intelligence than verbal generally are ”high functioning autistics” and not aspergers who have the opposite profile. High functioning also tend to have more probability to be criminous and extraverted or without greater social impairment.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/genetic-memory-how-we-know-things-we-never-learned/
On the link I posted.
Not totally agree about the ” genetic memory ” term, specifically in relation to the savant. Ok, it is clear that their skills (and ours as well) are essentially inherited or inborn. However, musical instruments, symbolic math and painting screens do not exist in the natural world, because they are human inventions. It’s a little different from the case of the annual migratory behavior of the Monarch Butterfly. It is an inherited behavior, but an inherited ability (like the ability to walk), which are not the same things, because the behavior is much more complex.
A savant ability is to ‘learn to walk’. Genetic memory becomes an idea that the savant does not learn, he at first contact, immediately plays the music or the image that remains engraved in his head. This does not seem to be true, because the savant learns, only in a breakneck speed.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1078274/Autistic-people-rely-gut-instincts-say-researchers.html#ixzz3lQG7bwHZ
PP,
amerindians, by psychometrically reasons, have the narrower iq bell curve?? Because, if east asians are by certain dimensions, cognitively superior than european caucasians, so below average iq 80, generally mean mentally handicapped in eurasians. What is the porcentage of pure blooded amerindians, in the north to south America who are in the two extremes sides of a ”bell curve”??? and below 70?? little is not??
If white europeans with/who score below 80 in iq tests are mentally handicapped, so east asians with same scores (and real correlation between iq scores and real cognition), will look severe retarded?
Hei??
Retarded people who belong to high IQ races tend to be organic retardates, because retardation is abnormal in those races, and thus associated with chromosomal abnormalities and physical deformities
By contrast, retarded people who belong to low IQ races tend to be familial retardates, because retardation is more common in those races, and thus, the retardates look and act more normal, and blend into society.
And those hbd theory to explain aboriginal and other ”low iq peoples”, act normal even with iq score below 80 or 70? For him, would normal and natural and non ”familial retardation”, remember that humans evolved from other primates, who will score lower in human iq tests, very lower, but they are not retarded.
And about amerindians?? They are like older mongoloids with other strains is not?? If their average iq-intelligence is between 84-92, then the % of amerindians with iq below 80 will be very lower and its bell curve will be very narrow, include the right side of bell curve or psychometric giftedness levels, if they are more evolved than aboriginals and others similar.
Civilization increase
domestication
but also
eugenic trends (domestication, + increase of brain-body encephalization)
and specialization or diversity by work division.
“the retardates look and act more normal, and blend into society.”
That does not explain why they don’t live lives of of retarded persons, why Rushton can find university students with a mean IQ of 79 implying that many have IQs in the 60s or even in the 50s.
At this point, there is doubt this score reflects a biologic aspect of brain function. A retardate can’t make it to college, can’t drive a car, can’t be a responsible adult that provides for a family, can’t have an autonomous life and does act stupid, he’s a grown up child and nothing else. When an IQ score does not translate this low level of real life ability, the score can’t be thought as a valid measurement of intelligence.
That does not explain why they don’t live lives of of retarded persons, why Rushton can find university students with a mean IQ of 79 implying that many have IQs in the 60s or even in the 50s.
An IQ of 79 on the Raven implies non-STEM African university students have non-verbal reasoning about the same as a white 12.9 year old. I don’t find that especially implausible, considering these were not math students, and they were not even graduates (a huge percentage would have gone on to dropout because of low grades).
Also, because African IQs are depressed by prenatal malnutrition, and malnutrition only strongly affects spatial ability, many of these students would have scored much higher on a test of academic skills, but their overall IQs are dragged down to 79 by poor nutrition impairing spatial reasoning.
“An IQ of 79 on the Raven implies non-STEM African university students have non-verbal reasoning about the same as a white 12.9 year old. I don’t find that especially implausible, considering these were not math students, and they were not even graduates (a huge percentage would have gone on to dropout because of low grades).”
A white non-precocious 13 year old couldn’t earn the high school diploma (including respectable grades in math and STEM subjects) that got these South African students to university.
Either organic or familial, biologic mental retardation is mental retardation no matter what is the cause of it. If the African mean IQ (which is around 80 using sound methodology) indicates mental retardation, African (or Victorian) societies and cultures should appear as the product of retardates, adult looking teenagers and that should be obvious to anybody who visits Africa or meets Africans. But this is not the case, explain that please.
You know, when Alfred Binet created the first IQ test, his objective was clear, IQ was not supposed to be thought as a measure of general intelligence but a means of identifying students who lagged behind or were above the mean of fellow school children. He knew his test was supposed to compare only children exposed to the same type of teaching in order to find those who were in need of something different and that a lower score didn’t always mean learning disability but a different learning process.
Binet was right thinking IQ could not estimate the intelligence of individuals exposed to a different kind of education and intellectual stimulation because multiple studies have shown African IQ scores to correlate weakly with “g” and between each other. That may explain why the 80 mean IQ in this region can’t be translated into real world patterns and tendencies.
By the way, I found out why people from lower IQ populations or eras are not retarded. You’re using an incomplete definition of mental retardation.
From wikipedia:
“Intellectual disability (ID), also called intellectual development disorder (IDD) or general learning disability,[1] and formerly known as mental retardation (MR),[2][3][4] is a generalized neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by significantly impaired intellectual and adaptive functioning. It is defined by an IQ score below 70 in addition to deficits in two or more adaptive behaviors that affect everyday, general living. Once focused almost entirely on cognition, the definition now includes both a component relating to mental functioning and one relating to individuals’ functional skills in their environments. As a result of this focus on the person’s abilities in practice, a person with an unusually low IQ may not be considered intellectually disabled. Intellectual disability is subdivided into syndromic intellectual disability, in which intellectual deficits associated with other medical and behavioral signs and symptoms are present, and non-syndromic intellectual disability, in which intellectual deficits appear without other abnormalities. Down syndrome and fragile X syndrome are examples of syndromic intellectual disabilities.”
Intellectual disability is low IQ + deficit in two or more adaptive behaviors
Adaptive behaviors are defined as:
“the age-appropriate behaviors necessary for people to live independently and to function safely and appropriately in daily life. Adaptive behaviors include life skills such as grooming, dressing, safety, food handling, working, money management, cleaning, making friends, social skills, and the personal responsibility expected of their age and social group.”
That’s why some populations do better in life than they do on IQ tests. Our South African students for instance are more intellectually able than 13 year old whites, they have achieved a high school degree, have attended educational institutions in a second language and live in autonomy as responsible young adults without expressing behaviors of 13 year old.
Now why are their IQs so low ? That may be linked to acquired biological developmental disadvantages, they probably have attended sub-optimal apartheid era eduction and may suffer specific conditions during the test.
And genetics ?
It is unlikely that some genes affect IQ test performance without impacting other behavioral functions. But if some genes are specifically targeting IQ-linked abilities, they yet need to be found.
Hope the things are now clearer to you Pumpkin.
I’m quite aware that psychologists consider real world adaptive behavior when officially diagnosing someone with mental retardation, however I’m simply using the psychometric component of the definition: IQ below 70.
There are several different causes of below 70 IQ: Gross genetic mutations (organic retardation), normal genetic and environmental variation (familial retardation), cultural deprivation (pseudo retardation) prenatal effects, etc.
Each of these causes results in a different cognitive profile and different prognosis.
“however I’m simply using the psychometric component of the definition: IQ below 70.”
Why don’t you use the full definition, the one that identifies intellectual ability and disability ?
Low IQ without behavioral deficits indicates more lower performance than lower fundamental ability, that’s why the Flynn effect could happen, that’s why one commenter has experienced large IQ fluctuation in a rather short time span, That’s why my IQ may be up to 70 points higher than it would be if I grew up in my birth environment.
“There are several different causes of below 70 IQ: Gross genetic mutations (organic retardation), normal genetic and environmental variation (familial retardation), cultural deprivation (pseudo retardation) prenatal effects, etc.”
Gross genetic mutations: proven
Environmentally caused brain damage and developmental impairment (including prenatal effects: proven
Normal genetic variation: possible but unproven and most likely very rare in any population since their is no reason evolution would have produced genetically normal yet disabled persons.
Cultural deprivation: surprising, I thought you claimed IQ tests were culture fair and that differences were not caused by cultural attitudes towards test-taking. This is however consensus among non HBD scholars (i.e every specialists except the Pioneer Fund clique) that IQ tests are not as strong measurement of intelligence in every culture.
Cultural deprivation: surprising, I thought you claimed IQ tests were culture fair and that differences were not caused by cultural attitudes towards test-taking
I claimed some IQ tests are very close to being culture fair. The vast majority are not
what do you think of genetic confounds in your beloved anti-HBD papers, afro? http://www.researchgate.net/publication/266677671_On_the_consequences_of_ignoring_genetic_influences_in_criminological_research
http://schoolsweek.co.uk/iq-may-mean-achievement-gap-can-never-close/
Also do you deny the fact that IQ gaps between different groups cannot be erased?
afrosapiens is right. iq = pseudo-science.
was rushton an organic or familial retardate?
peepee is obviously both.
churchill-tard:
adoption studies have erased differences in children and adolescents, and they’ve been erased in the UK over 30 years in terms of achievement test scores for blacks and bangladeshis.
the best adoption study compares blacks adopted by whites to blacks adopted by blacks.
jensen and rushton are LIARS and RETARDED.
https://books.google.com/books?id=vQeOX1ZdgpAC&pg=PA225&lpg=PA225&dq=black+children+adopted+by+black+parents+IQ&source=bl&ots=BU5DMwmsID&sig=GG7FsXy3JyfR4hz7ItQWpw7MUlI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CFgQ6AEwDWoVChMIxdmgqpb4xwIV0JyICh3Ggwez#v=onepage&q=black%20children%20adopted%20by%20black%20parents%20IQ&f=false
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/dev/22/3/317/
23 Black children (aged 7–10 yrs) who had been adopted by middle-class White families (i.e., transracially adopted) and 23 age-matched Black children who had been adopted by middle-class Black families (i.e., traditionally adopted). Findings indicate that while the traditionally adopted Ss received normal IQ scores, transracially adopted Ss showed nearly 1 standard deviation Full-Scale Scoring advantage over them.
Except that’s probably bullshit due to genetic confounding.
And what of the evidence that highly heritable traits CANNOT be modulated by environment? There is no such thing as GxE, there is only MEASUREMENT ERROR
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25539975
Above paper found lower IQ variance in low-SES families. They also found that heritability does not vary as a function of trait level (low IQ and high IQ are EQUALLY due to genes).
Click to access 1397380227162.pdf
above paper is an adoption study that again proves the high heritability of adult IQ, contrary to your meaningless citation.
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/24/9/1704.short
The only replicated finding in this meta-analysis of adoption and twin studies is of genetic amplification, compounding of GENE effects.
I bet that in time, the so-called IQ increase in your citation will dissapear due to geneetic amplificaiton
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/21/your-fate-thank-your-ancestors/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
“A number of studies of adopted children in the United States and Nordic countries show convincingly that their life chances are more strongly predicted from their biological parents than their adoptive families. In America, for example, the I.Q. of adopted children correlates with their adoptive parents’ when they are young, but the correlation is close to zero by adulthood. There is a low correlation between the incomes and educational attainment of adopted children and those of their adoptive parents.
These studies, along with studies of correlations across various types of siblings (identical twins, fraternal twins, half siblings) suggest that genetics is the main carrier of social status.”
https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2014/03/15/stolen-generations/
“I’m quite aware that psychologists consider real world adaptive behavior when officially diagnosing someone with mental retardation, however I’m simply using the psychometric component of the definition: IQ below 70.”
You’re not aware of it. The whole point of HBD is to use only the psychometric component of mental retardation to claim that some populations have average living standards caused by cognitive impairment and that most of it is genetic in origin.
You only come to doubt low IQ equals mental retardation when you evoke pre-Flynn effect scores of white. Although your questioning is genuine, you never bring up the full definition of retardation (low-IQ plus under-developed adaptive behaviors) you claim to be aware of. You just invent something else. At in that conversation, you said it was plausible South African students had the intellectual ability of white 13 years old and once again you did not come up saying “no, IQ alone does not define mental ability, retards also express behaviors that are not corresponding to their physical age and can’t be autonomous”. Instead of it, you invented something new “familial retardation which is more common in low IQ populations and shows no other symptoms but low IQ test scores and low social achievement”.
What you call familial retardation does not exist. Low IQ scores and retarded behavior is called non-syndromic mental disability. The individual looks normal but acts abnormal although there is no identified reason for this though it may exist in a not yet well understood aspect of brain functioning. There is nothing really familial in that and non-syndromic mental disability can emerge in families located in any part of the bell curve. Low IQ is not either the primary aspect of mental retardation, it only comes to confirm what behavioral issues led parents, teachers and specialists to suspect. However, someone only scoring low on IQ tests is just no good at IQ tests, it doesn’t mean they can’t do better, it doesn’t either mean their score has real life consequences. They were just not in a position to do well on the day they were tested.
Now Churchill, one of your links just says we can’t equalize intelligence. No one denies it, the bell curve will always be a bell curve and being “intelligent” is not what most people are looking for, they prefer being educated, beautiful, happy, loved… An IQ test score can only bring longtime satisfaction and pride to an intellectually limited person, a reasonable person won’t give that much importance to their own score if on the other side their life doesn’t fulfill their expectations.
What is funny however is that this scholar is British, the country where inter-ethnic/racial IQ gaps are almost closed and where the underclass is mostly composed of whites hit hard by deindustrialization and who’s educational, social and criminal record is becoming really outrageous whereas on the other side London is becoming an hub of intellectual excellence thanks to its African and Asian above-average achievers.
As far as your crime study, let me just tell you that I’m a lawyer and many of my friends and relatives specialize in criminal law or work and live in close proximity with this field. Firstly, it makes little sense that criminals act listening to their genes and that their violence or disrespect of law is compulsive, they act with reasonable though immoral intentions in mind and cases when no one (including the offender himself) can explain why a criminal acted the way he did are rare. But no matter how true or false is the genetics-crime association, let me tell you that it is dangerous to provide this kind of excuses to offender who will just say “you can’t blame me, it’s my nature”. Because you may not realize that in our human rights minded first world societies, identifying genes of crime would not result in sterilization or execution of genetic criminals, they would only be treated as mentally ill persons needing to be cured and cared and no justice will be made to their victims.
“However, someone only scoring low on IQ tests is just no good at IQ tests, it doesn’t mean they can’t do better, it doesn’t either mean their score has real life consequences. They were just not in a position to do well on the day they were tested.”
Also forgot mentioning the notion of format: an IQ test score evaluates how good one does on a specific format all while expressing lower or higher ability when the same cognitive functions are needed in another situation.
Now Pumpkin, kind of told me that you were using an other definition of mental ability than the one used by psychologists. Many questions come to my mind.
Is there an academic field whose methods are respected and followed by HBDers ?
What discipline HBD belongs to ?
Do you think there is need to create HBD departments in universities or amateur blogging is sufficient and reliable enough ?
Can HBD be considered a science if it always needs alternative methods to draw alternative conclusions ?
Although your questioning is genuine, you never bring up the full definition of retardation (low-IQ plus under-developed adaptive behaviors) you claim to be aware of.
I don’t bring it up because I don’t agree with it and never have. IQ tests are themselves excellent measures of adaptive behavior under very controlled conditions. Introducing real world adaptive behavior is non-scientific, because so many additional and subjective variables can affect performance in real life.
.
What you call familial retardation does not exist. Low IQ scores and retarded behavior is called non-syndromic mental disability. The individual looks normal but acts abnormal although there is no identified reason for this though it may exist in a not yet well understood aspect of brain functioning. There is nothing really familial in that and non-syndromic mental disability can emerge in families located in any part of the bell curve.
Wrong. Organic white retardates with IQs of 50 have siblings with IQs that average around 100 (the white average). Familial white retardates with IQs of 50 average IQs around 75.
adoption studies have erased differences in children and adolescents
But not in late adolescence and adulthood.
and they’ve been erased in the UK over 30 years in terms of achievement test scores for blacks and bangladeshis.
Obviously immigrants score higher after they’ve been in a country for generations and acquired the language and the nutrition.
jensen and rushton are LIARS and RETARDED.
They’re not. You are.
23 Black children (aged 7–10 yrs) who had been adopted by middle-class White families (i.e., transracially adopted) and 23 age-matched Black children who had been adopted by middle-class Black families (i.e., traditionally adopted). Findings indicate that while the traditionally adopted Ss received normal IQ scores, transracially adopted Ss showed nearly 1 standard deviation Full-Scale Scoring advantage over them.
Adoption studies typically find large environment effects in childhood. Problem is, these are fake gains that tend to vanish by adulthood.
nope.
if you’d read both links it’s clear.
flushton and densen are LIARS and RETARDED.
and on top of that flushton STOLE money from the fund dedicated to fund his research.
their own figure for the heritability of IQ at age 7 is trivially different from that for adults.
this is pointed out by Nisbett in the quote from his book i linked to, but you were too retarded to read.
Adoption studies typically find large environment effects in childhood. Problem is, these are fake gains that tend to vanish by adulthood.
except by “typically” you mean ONE study…and thus show you don’t know what “typically” means.
as usual you’re just making facts up peepee, because they fit your racist ideology.
so the LYING RETARDED RACIST theory is:
1. even though 99% of the data is on children all of it must be ignored.
2. blacks are just as bright as whites in childhood, but once they hit puberty…
besides jensen was 1/4 jewish, so you know at the outset that he’s a liar who lies for the attention it gets him.
“I don’t bring it up because I don’t agree with it and never have.”
Firstly, you must explain what scientific authority you have to reject a specialist definition of mental retardation.
Secondly, I have sad news for you: your definition of mental retardation will never allow you to understand why pre-Flynn effect whites were not retarded, why Black Africans are not retarded while showing a definition that you, and only you and HBDers use to label someone as a retard.
“IQ tests are themselves excellent measures of adaptive behavior under very controlled conditions. Introducing real world adaptive behavior is non-scientific, because so many additional and subjective variables can affect performance in real life.”
Well, no, they’re not. There are too many cases of IQs not reflecting real life ability. IQ tests are only useful tool to help psychologist seeing if abnormal behavior was linked to brain dysfunction expressed by IQ test performance. And you know what, this real world method, based on real world observation actually lead to real world scientific detection of syndromic yet not obvious mental conditions. In rarer cases, low IQ and abnormal behavior can’t be linked to a particular syndrome that we are yet able to identify. But without those behaviors nothing would cause specialists to question the intelligence of someone who does respectably in life. A functional person doing bad on a test just does bad on tests, their real life, their ability to adapt to their specific environment and the challenges it brings to them are not affected, hence they show no sign of mental disability, can go to college, feed themselves, graduate, take care of themselves, be autonomous adults who have a social network, find employment…
“Familial white retardates with IQs of 50 average IQs around 75.”
First of all, if you want to look serious and not like someone who makes up his own science, use the specialist terminology: “Organic” = “sydromic”, “Familial” => Non syndromic.
Then bring the source of that statement that I sure won’t take as gospel.
To help you understand why they had to change the definition of mental retardation, alway keep in mind that these labels were created in pre-Flynn effect era. At this time a very low IQ ways always abnormal since this psychometric artifact had not experienced the senseless inflation that came afterwards. At that time, IQ reflected more of a biologic reality that could be associated to an observable deficit. It’s only when IQ scores started rising that we started seeing functional persons with scores that previously were always translated into real life mental disability. That’s when specialists came to the conclusion that being unable to live in autonomy was a better indicator of disability than how well you did in already debated tests.
Now if you want to stick to an outdated methodology, that’s up to you, but think about writing a disclaimer making things clear “Here we use outdated methods, invent our own science and try to explain how society works based on that”.
Hahaha, krupp sphere/Jorge Videla/3rd world dictator doubts HBD but thinks Jews are genetically evil.
What a moron, and what a contradiction.
Hey, didn’t you say you were gonna leave permanently, Afro?
their own figure for the heritability of IQ at age 7 is trivially different from that for adults.
this is pointed out by Nisbett in the quote from his book i linked to, but you were too retarded to read.
Nisbett is full of shit. The fact that IQ heritability roughly doubles from childhood to adulthood is one of the most well established facts in behavioral genetics. Rushton and Jensen are on extremely solid ground in pointing this out, regardless of what their own figures may have said.
except by “typically” you mean ONE study…and thus show you don’t know what “typically” means.
as usual you’re just making facts up peepee, because they fit your racist ideology.
It’s not racist, it’s just a fact. Heritability roughly doubles from childhood to adulthood which means environmental effects vanish. Even ultra liberal wikipedia and the ultra liberal American Psychological Association have been forced to admit this:
A 1996 statement by the American Psychological Association gave about 0.45 for children and about .75 during and after adolescence.[8] A 2004 meta-analysis of reports in Current Directions in Psychological Science gave an overall estimate of around 0.85 for 18-year-olds and older.[9] The general figure for heritability of IQ is about 0.5 across multiple studies in varying populations.[10] Recent studies suggest that family environment (i.e., upbringing) has negligible long-lasting effects upon adult IQ.[11]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ
so the LYING RETARDED RACIST theory is:
1. even though 99% of the data is on children all of it must be ignored.
There’s only been about four transracial adoption studies. By far the largest, least biased, and most comprehensive was the Minnesota transracial adoption study and it strongly confirmed HBD
However you’re right that the other three studies contradicted HBD, but most of these had major flaws:
For example Tizard (1974) compared black, white and mixed-race kids raised in English residential nurseries and found that the only significant IQ difference favored the non-white kids. A problem with this study is that the children were extremely young (below age 5) and ethnic differences in maturation rates favor black kids. A bigger problem with this study is that the parents of the black kids appeared to be immigrants (African or West Indian) and immigrants are often hyper-selected for IQ (see Indian Americans).
A second study by Eyferth (1961) found that the biological illegitimate children of white German women had a mean IQ of 97.2 if the biological father was was a white soldier and 96.5 if the biological father was a black soldier (a trivial difference). Both the white and mixed kids were raised by their biological white mothers. One problem with this study is that the biological fathers of both races would have been screened to have similar IQ’s because at the time, only the highest scoring 97% of whites and highest scoring 70% of blacks passed the Army General Classification Test and were allowed to be U.S. soldiers. In addition, 20% to 25% of the “black fathers” were not African-American or even black Africans, but rather French North Africans (non-white caucasoids or “dark whites” as they are sometimes called). In addition, there was no follow-up to measure the adult IQ of the children.
The third study by Moore (1986) included a section where he looked at sub-samples of children adopted by white parents. He found that nine adopted kids with two black biological parents averaged 2 IQ points higher than 14 adopted kids with only one biological black parent but the sample size was quite small, and again, no follow up when the kids were older.
2. blacks are just as bright as whites in childhood, but once they hit puberty…
besides jensen was 1/4 jewish, so you know at the outset that he’s a liar who lies for the attention it gets him.
Blacks children who grow up in white professional homes score just as high as average whites, but not as high as whites adopted into those same homes. And by adulthood, adopted blacks regress to the national black mean of 85, while adopted whites regress to the national white mean of 100
At least that’s what happened in the Minnesota transracial adoption study, but it needs to be replicated before being considered fact
“Hey, didn’t you say you were gonna leave permanently, Afro?”
Yes I did say that.
Seuls les imbéciles ne changent pas d’avis.
”and malnutrition only strongly affects spatial ability”
Remember biological existent ceilling, if you no have heritable potential to be improved by environmental interventions, just genetics that will can explain it. Jews are the most well nutrished people since hundred years and their spatial intelligence don’t increase because this well nutrition.
Pumpkin-“Adoption studies typically find large environment effects in childhood. Problem is, these are fake gains that tend to vanish by adulthood.”
OK if fake GAINS tend to vanish by adulthood, then fake LOSSES should tend to vanish by adulthood as well? any studies to back this up?
positive environment=fake gains in IQ-Studies Proven This
negative environment=fake loss in IQ-Are there any studies????
Pumpkin I wish you would come full circle on things like this.
Also to both Afro and Pumpkin, i 100% believe in HBD although im not an HBD extremist. I am more in the middle between you and Afro.
I am completely open to credible theories that may contradict my current beliefs. Because i am searching for the truth. I will not fall victim to confirmation bias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
I’m starting to think pumpkin is succumbing to confirmation bias because he wont even give the time of day to any theory that HBD either cant explain, or goes against it even just a little.
Examples of Pumpkin’s confirmation bias are numerous. Once he wrote a post pretending Blacks had less predisposition for autism because genes of autism are thought to be associated with higher intelligence while on the other hand, they had more predisposition for schizophrenia which he said was associated with low IQ genes although nothing really supports this.
So I came up with data showing that blacks were actually more predisposed to autism and that the worldwide epidemiology of schizophrenia did not follow the HBD view of humanity, Western countries had lower rates, Southeast Asia the highest, Subsaharan Africa was just average, as were most of Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean. He did not discuss that much my data on schizophrenia, however with respect to autism, he selected some studies that were more favorable to his theory whereas the dominant literature says Blacks have higher rates of autism, the conversation quickly vanished afterwards, Pumpkin was just not ready to question his theory. But I told him, there’s no problem with him finding figures that are more supportive of his claim (though it was not even enough to give weight to his theory) but he also had to make a similar effort bringing up studies that went in the dominant direction that I’ve had indicated. Confirmation bias.
Another time, I showed him maps disproving Rushton’s r-K theory, these maps made clear that there was no particular race-sexual activity correlation at worldwide level and that overal, very traditional a prudish Africa was rather on the sexually restrained side. So he started attacking the seriousness of these data, that’s true they did not come from an academic background, they were ordered by the Brand Durex to help it adjust it’s marketing strategy with reliable information about the patterns of sexual activity in different countries. Lynn used the same source to show that Blacks have larger penises than average and that caused no problem when the same source was brought up by the right person in his eyes, but when another person came telling the full story, he just realized he did not like it that much because it told something different from what he believes in, so the data was not reliable. Confirmation bias.
Now, just here on this post, Pumpkin person just can’t imagine a world in which IQ is not the magic thing that got him hypnotized. For no serious reason, he says IQ is more important than observable behavior which he deems subjective unscientific judgment (joke). What he just does not understand is that when we see a 5 years old that can’t lace his shoes and tries to put his socks on his hands if left alone, his parents, his teachers, his relatives come to think there is something wrong with him. So they bring him to a specialist who makes he take an IQ test in which he does extremely bad. When he’s 25 he still won’t make a difference between gloves and socks, everybody will agree that sandals fit him better. Well, this is something subjective and unscientific, that guy may look normal to pumpkin who will think he’s not that different from a 79 IQ South African college student, but that’s pumpkin world. Any reasonable person will think that the two IQs translate something totally different and that the two can’t be lumped in a common retarded category. Making the decision to ignore the full aspect of the definition of mental ability, Pumpkin Person fell victim to confirmation bias. Again.
Nitpicking.
And why do Africans get the AIDS so much?
There are two Africas when it comes to Aids.
First, in West Africa infection rates are low to moderate (at South-east Asian, Latin American, Eastern European levels). There infection is almost always linked to a customer of prostitution. Since Africans are not science aware, they tend to associate the symptoms of HIV as sorcery and don’t follow the recommendations needed to prevent contamination and may infect their partner. But since they have a low number of different partners, a husband will only infect his wife or wives and HIV won’t spread like a flu. By the way,this part of Africa is the most populated and racially the blackest.
Then you have Bantu Africa where people are not more science aware than west Africans but are definitely more promiscuous thus not requiring a close link with the world of prostitution to get infected.
One statistical illusion that affects both parts of Africa is that the most at-risk demographic group, young adults are a greater share of the adult population than in many other countries, so it increases the rate for the total adult population whereas infection rates at each age in many African countries (those that have low to moderate infection rates) are not that much higher than in non-African countries.
“And why do Africans get the AIDS so much?”
There are also differences in the duffy antigen system that brings resistance to malaria but has the side effect of increasing vulnerability to health contamination though with better survival pronostic.
You know, at an elite college, you would have made an entire lecture hall laugh with this question and most of your comments. With people asking “where did they get this guy from” ?
So in Nigeria/Ghana/The Congo, elevated HIV infection rates compared to the West can be explained by demographic differences. OK, I can accept that (although these demographic differences themselves are genetic in origin). But what explains the freakishly high HIV infection rate in South Africa. Are they just a bunch of sluts? I mean, even with the malaria antigen, not that many South Africans should be getting HIV. Unless their sluts or something.
Just curious. And i know my style is a little informal, but I think that’s okay on the Internet. Of course I wouldn’t speak like this in a college lecture hall.
“But what explains the freakishly high HIV infection rate in South Africa.”
Many things, first, there is the sky high incarceration rate of the late apartheid era, the 80s when no one really knew how HIV was transmitted and when South African inmates had to satisfy their natural manly needs with each others.
Second thing, Africans are not aware of diseases, they associate the symptoms with witchcraft and are quite skeptical about the white man’s science. They will always prefer the advice of a traditional practitioner to that of a physician. Many of them only have primary school education and “microbes”, “virus” or things like that are ranked quite low in terms of awareness when compared to god’s will or a spell someone casts. Modern medicine is just not in their mental universe whereas traditional one is and it Southern Africa, the belief is that raping a virgin cures HIV so you understand what happens… At the same time, HIV makes a lot of orphans, kids growing up on their own and trying adult things without notions of sexual safety and sexual regulation. All of that contributes to the sky high infection rate in Southern Africa and to a lesser extent in East Africa. In addition to the Duffy antigen system and the statistic illusion caused by demography.
But this is a Southern African issue, not an African issue or a Black issue. Much like the infection rate in eastern Europe which is way much higher than in Western Europe and that is not an European issue or a white issue.
The reason why you would have made a whole lecture hall rolling on the floor laughing at an elite university is not the style of the question, it’s the question itself. It shows how non-elite your level of knowledge is, you know upper class folks are sufficiently aware of world cultures to find your question ridiculous. They read, travel overseas, take part in humanitarian missions and you just appear as a caveman to them. I can tell you that because I’m upper class myself and all of your “science” or more accurately your lack thereof is what we scornfully call “philosophie de comptoir”. Ignorant people spreading their ignorance with pride and genuine interest.
OK if fake GAINS tend to vanish by adulthood, then fake LOSSES should tend to vanish by adulthood as well? any studies to back this up?
The reason there are studies showing IQ gains tend to vanish is because adoption tends to be a one way street. People from low IQ races and backgrounds get adopted by high IQ races, who give them fake gains in childhood that vanish in adulthood, but high IQ races are seldom adopted by low IQ races.
Now if there was a study where rich Jewish kids were adopted by blacks in the ghetto, then we’d expect to see fake IQ LOSSES that vanished in adulthood.
In other words, just as poor blacks adopted by rich Jews would have IQs as high as 110 in childhood but 85 in adulthood, I would expect rich Jews adopted by poor blacks might have IQs as low as 85 in childhood, but 110 in adulthood.
But it would be interesting to see an actual study to see if it really does work both ways
What we do know from identical twin studies is that the older you are, the more IQ correlates with genes, so people with low IQ genes in good environments should get dumber with age (relative to their peers), and people with high IQ genes in bad environments should get smarter with age
Yeah that would be such a good study, it would shine a whole new light a new world of information.
Do you think a Jew would remain a Jew if adopted by blacks ?
Do you think a Jew would remain a Jew if adopted by blacks ?
Of course not, he’d start living that Thug Life.
Hey Pumpkin you might need to start moderating who you allow to comment.
Too many blacks/mulattoes/octaroons on here. You don’t want to turn your blog into a ghetto, do you?
that was a low blow, there are more poor white people than poor blacks, can we not stoop low to insults and keep it professional?
http://www.theroot.com/articles/culture/2013/12/most_poor_people_in_america_are_white.html
Just a joke 🙂
I’m black too, BTW.
You’re definitely not good at making jokes lion.
Afrosapiens seems to be arguing that 79 IQ Africans at university are a lot smarter than we think they are. I’m skeptical.
Are African universities any better that Western middle schools? This may seem like a dumb question, but I seriously curious. What do the TIMMS scores say?
Blacks probably have greater social skills/sexual development/physical development/non-cognitive abilities than whites of the same IQ level, but that doesn’t mean their reasoning abilities are top notch.
“Are African universities any better that Western middle schools? This may seem like a dumb question, but I seriously curious. What do the TIMMS scores say?”
According to TIMMS scores, West Africans high schoolers have scores reflecting an IQ near 90.
This is a dumb question, African universities (especially South African ones) are better than Western middle schools. They are selective and teach concepts that a white middle schooler just can’t handle. Man, if you’re seriously curious about that, don’t even wonder why you were not accepted in elite universities.
“Blacks probably have greater social skills/sexual development/physical development/non-cognitive abilities than whites of the same IQ level, but that doesn’t mean their reasoning abilities are top notch.”
You will put whatever you want to under the term reasoning abilities, what is sure however is that Africans get better life outcomes with IQs that will make a white person “retarded”. I doubt these scores reflect true intellectual deficit, they may imply a difference but I would rather think about distance than retard, like they are not some mental age years behind but some mental miles away.
What makes this IQ thing really dubious is not only that Africans have age appropriate behaviors, they also show more signs of ingeniousness when they try to get by in their everyday life. Africa is the place where a lot is made out of little, African cities and villages are places where you often get amazed to realize how a simple object can find that many uses with a little bit of imagination. So no, observable reality makes it unbelievable that the African population is mostly retarded.
The IQ thresholds of mental retardation if taken alone are outdated measures. Always remember that they were created in pre-Flynn effect years when 70 had a current day value of 55. So at this time, the threshold was useful but now things are a little bit more complicated and IQ alone won’t mean mental retardation if there are no consequence of it in adaptive behavior (adaptation is one of the most important aspect of human intelligence).
“Afrosapiens seems to be arguing that 79 IQ Africans at university are a lot smarter than we think they are. I’m skeptical.” I agree with Lion
im agreeing with Lion here too that “Blacks probably have greater social skills/sexual development/physical development/non-cognitive abilities than whites of the same IQ level, but that doesn’t mean their reasoning abilities are top notch.”
in fact i have a plausible theory with backed up studies that can put an end to the African IQ gap debate once and for all.
Ok what is it?
I might as well end this “black white IQ gap in the US” debate once and for all.
and to do that I have to start at the beginning.
The reason humans in general are the most intelligent animals on Earth. Is because all modern day human ancestors, evolved in the heart of sub-Saharan Africa. Over 200 thousand years ago, in an environment ripe with natural resources. People did not have to struggle to survive. All they had to do was hunt for food and attract mates. There are plenty of mammals,like gorillas and chimps for example, that have no problems doing this and according to Pumpkin at least chimp IQ is arguably in the negatives. So the fact that early humans have IQ at all is because they NEEDED that IQ strictly for survival. Without it they wouldn’t have become apex predators at the top of the food chain.
So this is the basic origin of IQ- to survive,adapt, and shape our environment to benefit ourselves. Basically the same definition Pumpkin always uses. NOW, for some reason or another(many theories why) Africans spread thru out the world with most remaining behind in Africa and a large number ending up in Europe. Europe is essentially the mirror negative image of sub-Saharan Africa and the Africans that settled there evolved mirrored traits to survive the new environment. (white skin instead of dark skin etc). MEANING people that were born with the mirror opposite traits of the original Africans Out survived and/or out reproduced their peers that were more like the African ancestors.Till eventually Europeans perfectly adapted to their new environment and became perfect mirror opposite images of their ancient ancestors.
Ok i know what your thinking, that’s all fine and dandy now how does this explain the black white IQ gap in the US? I’m getting there hold on.
Fast forward to modern day United States, where the descendants of the sub-Saharan blacks that stayed in Africa and the whites that evolved in Europe live together in roughly the same overall environment… Let me make it clear now that whites DO IN FACT have higher IQ ,white skin, straight hair etc. because they evolved it….THEY NEEDED IT….they NEEDED a higher IQ to adapt to their environment. and out of all whites the Ashkenazi Jew population needed more IQ than any other population on earth in order to not get out survived/ out reproduced by well… a different group. Does that mean whites are more evolved than blacks? Yes it does. The newest/newer race/population is always more evolved.
Does this mean whites are superior to blacks?Well… it depends on the subject,..in specific areas blacks dominate whites. Raw physical ability and athleticism is one area.
but OVERALL-the superiority goes to WHITES BECAUSE they are 1 standard deviation above blacks in IQ- the ability to survive,adapt, and shape the environment to benefit themselves. Similarly east Asians are above European whites, and Ashkenazi Jew’s at the very top. I mean come on… 30% of billionaires are Ashkenazi Jews. You cant get much more powerful as a group than that.
OK.Right now. any HBD extremist/white supremist reading so far, has got to be in love with me. Well that stops here. Everything that i have said up to this point is in fact the cold hard truth. but what i’ve written so far has not explained the ENTIRE truth. The truth above ONLY explains why whites evolved a higher IQ than blacks IN THE PAST. IT DOES NOT explain why white IQ is still 100 and black IQ is still 85 even in modern day. It DOES NOT explain why whites and blacks live together in the same environment but the IQ gap is still there.IT DOES NOT explain why IQ 85 blacks out reproduce IQ 100 blacks while IQ 100 whites Out reproduce IQ 85 whites. and I am going to put this to rest and explain it all. Right now.
Firstly the total amount of people in a given population is controlled more so by males than females because males are capable of having many more offspring. So the IQ gap is mostly caused by black males and white males. So ill be focusing on those 2 groups…….NOW.
Numerous studies show that the average black male is 5 ft 9, IQ 85, 300% more confident than the average white male, and has 14 opposite sex partners in a lifetime on average. While the average white male is 5 ft 9 IQ 100 average confidence and has 7 opposite sex partners on average in a lifetime.
Also There is data from a study/survery Dr.Satoshi Kanazawa did that shows white women rate black male faces as more attractive than white male faces. (only native american male faces were rated more attractive than black male faces)
Also the study shows that black males are more handsome than white males when controlling for IQ and that there is a linear increase in attractiveness in correlation with male IQ.MEANING. black males are more attractive per IQ point than white males and males are more attractive per iq point in general.For example black males with IQ 100 are more handsome than white males with IQ 100. and black males with IQ 100 are more handsome than black males with IQ 85.
why does this matter? Because white women rate black male faces as more attractive than white male faces overall AND point for point. Meaning black males with an IQ 85 are more handsome than white males with an IQ 100.and therefore IQ 85 black males must be EXTREMELY handsome IN COMPARISON to IQ 85 white males. So… IQ 85 white males must be very very ugly on average and just cant find willing mates to have sex with and thus get out reproduced by smarter,higher IQ whites. OK… that answers why IQ 100 whites Out reproduce IQ 85 whites. So on to the next question.
The next question is how, come the black IQ is not 100 if IQ 100 blacks are indeed more attractive than IQ 85 blacks?
SIMPLE, the intelligent blacks are dating white women! *gasp* (what a twist!) but seriously
that’s the only logical explanation that can be come to.The reason the black white IQ gap still exists is because intelligent black men are marrying white women, and leaving dumber black males to get with the black girls and thus keep the IQ gap in check. The leading theory is that like attracts like, in long term relationships.Think about it. an IQ 100 black male is probably going to be more alike in taste, and interests with someone who has an IQ of 100 instead of 85. So the smart black guys, on average are going to just end up having mixed babies with white girls.
This of course raises new questions that i have to answer as well.Like Why are blacks more attractive per IQ point anyway? And why is it the higher you go up the HBD totem pole, athleticism decreases?and Finally are IQ 79 African university students REALLY THAT DUMB? *cracks knuckles* OK lets get started.
I believe that the mate value system of blacks answer’s all of these questions. OK let me clarify to you exactly what i mean by that.OK. in sub-Saharan Africa evolutionary history survival was relatively easy and life was all about mating. So essentially males evolved to be dumb as rocks and very well endowed in looks,personality, and athleticism While In Europe survival become harder so as average male IQ went up….average male looks,personality and athleticism went down. so guess what race of males would have the ugliest looks,personalities and be the most un-athletic on average? you guessed it 😉 ashkenazi males! Thus explaining why there so unathletic. Even though there at the top of the HBD totem pole. They were too busy trying to survive to focus on being sexy.
So… Now to answer are IQ 79 African university students really THAT DUMB?
The answer is simple, yes! yes,they are! There are videos that these show these low IQ African university students are very very bright when you talk to them, but will BOMB these IQ tests. although the reason why they seem so intelligent when you talk to them is because they have extremely attractive personalities.And why do they have extremely attractive personalities? because in sub-saharan Africa being sexy and attractive is more important than being good at surviving. So to whoever they talk to, it seems like there very intelligent because, being a smooth talker is good for wooing females and interacting with people to get what you want.But It becomes clear that *socially* there very bright, but *mentally*there actually dumb as rocks, and this shows. When they take the IQ test. the difference between the IQ 79 white person and the IQ 79 African, is that the IQ 79 Africans evolved to be creative, outgoing, rythmatic,athletic, sexy etc. with IQ’s that low.While white people with IQ’S as low as 79 did not have that same evolution and therefore are *socially* and *mentally* retarded when they have that IQ score.
Ok so every question has just been answered and i’ve closed the debate.
In the end blacks are more handsome,more athletic, and have sexier personalities than whites on average.ALTHOUGH whites have higher IQ-meaning A higher ability to survive,adapt and reshape their environment to fit their needs. (and therefore make more money and grow more wealth)
So in overall world domination its whites>blacks
in some specific categories its blacks>whites
have a good day 😉
Relevant Studies
http://www.lipstickalley.com/showthread.php/664260-Study-Black-Men-the-Most-Attractive-Males-On-Average
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-scientific-methodological-objections-to-the-Psychology-Today-article-Why-Are-Black-Women-Less-Physically-Attractive-Than-Other-Women-being-removed-from-the-publication
http://thegrio.com/2012/07/17/survey-black-men-have-nearly-4-times-as-many-sexual-partners-as-black-women/
http://conservative-headlines.com/2014/12/black-americans-have-higher-self-esteem-than-white-americans/
These are HBD classics man, and it makes serious scientists laugh. Many fantasy and inaccuracies here.
That’s a lot of text.
And a lot of speculation too…
And are Jews really the least athletic? They were known as good basketball players back in the day (Dolph Schayes and his son Danny come to mind).
There’s also Sandy Koufax.
Hahaha, I finally read your whole post. I actually agree with parts of it, although most of it is the same old “whites smarter, blacks more athletic/sexual” tropes that people have been joking about for years.
“OK… that answers why IQ 100 whites Out reproduce IQ 85 whites. So on to the next question.
The next question is how, come the black IQ is not 100 if IQ 100 blacks are indeed more attractive than IQ 85 blacks?”
MEANT TO SAY “OK… that answers why IQ 100 white males Out reproduce IQ 85 white males. So on to the next question.
The next question is how, come the black IQ is not 100 if IQ 100 black males are indeed more attractive than IQ 85 black males?”
“In the end blacks are more handsome,more athletic, and have sexier personalities than whites on average.ALTHOUGH whites have higher IQ-meaning A higher ability to survive,adapt and reshape their environment to fit their needs. (and therefore make more money and grow more wealth)”
MEANT TO SAY
“In the end black males are more handsome,more athletic, and have sexier personalities than white males on average.ALTHOUGH white males have higher IQ-meaning A higher ability to survive,adapt and reshape their environment to fit their needs.