When I was a kid I was fascinated by black panthers. I just loved the idea that these dangerous ferocious beasts were the same type of mammal as some cuddly adorable house pets. Despite being at opposite extremes on one very defining trait (ferociousness), they were still subcategories of the same larger category (cats).
This relates to my interest in IQ, because there are several sub-types of people who are at opposite extremes of IQ, yet still have been lumped into the same larger category. The most offensive example is Downs Syndrome (low IQ) and East Asians (high IQ) both at one time being considered Mongoloids.
Another example would be Ashkenazi Jews (high IQ) and gypsies (low IQ) are both arguably Nomadic Caucasoids.
Another example is Silicon Valley gazillionaires (super high IQ) and classic autistics (super low IQ) are both considered by some to be autistic.
I find you can learn a lot about the non-IQ traits of a high IQ group by studying its low IQ counterpart. This is because high IQ people are very good at masking their nature, while the low IQ counterpart shows the unmasked version.
Pumpkin Person 
Whats the correlation between musical skill and IQ. E.g., what would you expect the IQ of the best Under 18 year old Violist to be?
See:
https://pumpkinperson.com/2015/11/08/do-you-need-to-be-a-genius-to-be-a-genius/
pp combines both mongoloid and mongoloid in the same person.
Wow…THat’s all I can say.
One could make that parallel between Jews and blacks. Both believe strongly in the government, both are liberal, both value the arts and entertainment and are influential in both, both are very idealistic.
On the other hand, Asians and Hispanics share an introverted pragmatic mentality and an inability to verbally manipulate but very opportunistic.
I think the differences between idealism and pragmatic cultures are a bigger divide than iq gap.
This is why high iq blacks seem almost bipolar like their jewish counterparts while high iq latinos seem autistic.
One could make that parallel between Jews and blacks. Both believe strongly in the government, both are liberal, both value the arts and entertainment and are influential in both, both are very idealistic.
But Jews are very good at getting rich, even controlling for IQ. Blacks are terrible at getting rich,even controlling for IQ.
On the other hand, gypsies are quite good at getting rich relative to their IQs:
http://isteve.blogspot.ca/2013/04/men-with-gold-chains-rich-gypsies.html
I suspect it’s because Jews and Gypsies share a similar nomadic evolutionary history
Page 570 of the G-factor shows perhaps one of the most interesting things I’ve ever seen. It gives a chart from Herrnstein’s and Murray’s “Bell Curve” comparing social outcomes of blacks and whites controlling for IQ.
Blacks tend to attain greater amounts of education and “high level occupations” when controlling for IQ, but do far worse on social variables like out-of-wedlock births, likelihood of being on welfare and marriage by age 30. Whites make slightly more in income when controlling for IQ. I’m guessing this pattern of results is due to blacks receiving affirmative action for college entrance and high level jobs, but their lower conscientiousness prevents them from actually succeeding without help.
Because blacks tend to have lower levels of conscientiousness/work ethic, which prevents them from succeeding even when controlling for intelligence (or maybe it’s the almighty RAYCISM!). Hence, their being underrepresented among billionaires.
I would also submit the argument that blacks and Jews are similar in the sense of having high extroversion and psychopathy, but blacks have the unfortunate trait of also being very lazy…
you’re as black as conan o’brien…stop lying already.
hurry up and take your “shower”.
“lazy” and “hard working” have no non-ideological meaning.
how immature can you be not to know that?
and once again you show a total inability to separate ideology from reality.
what is “success”? once you define it, ask yourself if everything which makes it more likely is a virtue and everything which makes is less likely is a vice?
most people can’t think. all they can do is mimic. you’re not special.
one can play a word game whereby many of the putative virtues which make success more likely are instead vices.
oreos anyone?
apples?
bananas?
hydrox?
you’re definitely a hydrox.
a white guy pretending to be an oreo.
and discrimination based on race is real both for and against minorites. there is, for example, discrimination in favor of blacks for the position of corner back in the nfl. discrimination against blacks has been incontrovertibly documented.
those who deny it are either lying or autistic, urkel.
and there’s a whole slew of things with absolutely no protection. for example, it’s perfectly legal to discriminate against someone because he scores too high on an iq test. this case was decided in CT recently. or just because you don’t like them or don’t like their accent or whatever.
in general if the decision is subjective it IS discriminatory. there’s no way to avoid discrimination except by using perfectly objective criteria which everyone is aware of beforehand.
I’ll post my 23andme results tomorrow to prove I’m black.
what is “success”? once you define it, ask yourself if everything which makes it more likely is a virtue and everything which makes is less likely is a vice?
I don’t think we disagree. Conventionally, people define success in terms of wealth, prestige, dominance, and sex. Some may focus on more noble goals like gaining wisdom or philanthropy, or neutral ones like pursuing hobbies, but those things don’t in and of themselves equal success from a Darwinian point of view.
Unfortunately, many of the traits that equal success aren’t necessarily good traits. Avarice helps a lot. So do Machiavellian personality traits. A strong achievement-orientation also helps, which can be good or bad depending on the situation.
People in HBD tend to focus on IQ to the exclusion of anything else. If they do venture beyond IQ in explaining success, they tend to focus (ironically) on environmental factors like the schools one went to. They forget that genetics also influence non-cognitive traits.
I guess my point is that personality traits, as I’ve discussed before, probably matter just as much as IQ, if not more. And many of the personality traits leading to conventionally defined success are not pro-social ones…
I say all of this as someone who used to be a fucktard and thought Ayn Rand was the pinnacle of human thought (this was back in undergraduate).
I’ve met some pretty wealthy people over the years. Maybe it was because they were nouveau rich or something, but a lot them were pretty shitty, dumb people. Their kids tended to be even worse. Their financial success could’ve only been ascribed to an intense obsession with making money at all costs.
In fact, I’ll go as far as to say that the only truly evil person I’ve ever met was also pretty wealthy too. But that’s a long story I don’t wanna get into…
in the case of “hard working” and “lazy”, both arose in their current sense with the industrial revolution and the near universal alienation of labor form its work-product.
lazy at what?
hard working at what?
what specifically?
that is, as soon as people made their living within large organizations of near strangers producing things they did not consume or have any use for, what used to be the effort required of a crofter or craftsman became totally abstract.
the value of the present age are the values of its ruling class, or rather the cant which maintains the present arrangements economic and political.
“hard working” and “lazy” are merely short hand for “useful employee” or “meaningless syllables used to apparently justify gross inequality”.
it’s really quite amazing how the bourgeoisie has produced almost universal false consciousness in the proletariat. even among some blacks or hydroxes.
and false consciousness has never been taken further than it has in america in the last 30 years.
so in job interviews i was often asked “are you a hard worker?” i wanted to say, “fuck you retard.” but i didn’t. i always said, “i value getting things done. i do not value work for its own sake.” needless to say this led to at least one hiring manager saying he wasn’t interested, because he thought i was not a “hard worker”.
so you can see again the pervasive nature of discrimination and of ideology.
if you don’t buy into the bourgeois ideology, it can cost you a job. and of course this isn’t deliberate. it’s all un-conscious or semi-conscious.
they don’t know it, but they do it.
what does “hard working” really mean?
it means that you are willing to suffer to make a profit for your employer, that you are afraid of your employer, or in a not for profit or government it means that you are willing to make your employer look good.
define what needs to be done and the time in which it needs to be done. do it. that’s it. or it should be. but it isn’t. at least not in america.
except if the work is totally meaningless in itself, if you’re only doing it for money, you must have this totally abstract personality trait of “hard working” and if you don’t have it then you’re “lazy”.
it’s just jive.
“working hard” at something totally meaningless and incredibly boring and chiding yourself for any “laziness” is totally sub-human and new to the human experience. now the vast majority of the formally employed in the developed world are both in deed and in thought uncle toms. whether they’re asian or european or black.
of course wittgenstein’s idea of a language game is appropriate here as the terms “lazy” and “hard working” are not often used to convey information or describe reality, they are used to do something.
if you refuse to play the language game that so many have learned by heart completely incognizant that it’s a game, they might think you were weird, or “different”.
there really is a price to be paid for thinking, but no thought police is required. ideology is human nature. the cognitive dissonance of living in a broken world one can do nothing about is too great, so people “adapt” not in deed but in thought, except the “adaptation” is not to the world as it really is, but rather to the world as it must be in order to justify the way it is. then they needn’t even try to do anything, because everything is as it should be. then there is no guilt.
we shall meet in the place where there is no darkness.
For certain fields, IQ gives one the capacity to succeed. Hard work will get you past the finish line, but a high IQ is still necessary to compete. In today’s competitive economy, IQ is becoming more and more important of a determinant of whether one succeeds or falls between the cracks. There are other factors, but IQ is still important.
Chartreuse, here’s an article by a hereditarian which is very favourable to your position when it comes to GxE in intelligence:
http://www.citylab.com/work/2015/12/povertys-role-in-intellectual-development/420822/
But his position is more defensible than yours!
LOL! Everyone keeps calling me an Uncle Tom! I promise you, I’m not.
Us blacks have bigger penises (much more girth, in fact).
They get laid more.
They’re stronger and sexier.
We dance really well, of course.
These things are all true for me in fact (well except maybe the dancing part). I hope this disproves my Uncle Tomism.
I think black people are lazier when it comes to intellectual activities, just from my general perception. I actually don’t think it’s immediately obvious that they’re stupid, the way it is with a lot of poor whites I’ve interacted with. Blacks, compared to whites, tend to have a certain verbal facility that’s far higher than what you’d expect based on their IQ. But I still think it’s likely (on average) they have lower IQ.
I’ve noticed, in my personal life, that when controlling for IQ, blacks tend to be more sexual, more laid back (not necessarily a bad thing), more anti-intellectual, less curious about the world, and less willing to try activities or join groups outside of what they’re used to. I’m not saying these things are true for myself, just what I’ve noticed in general…
But blacks are also (in my opinion) much more common-sensical (if that’s a word) about certain aspects of the social world than whites. That’s why a lot of times I prefer hanging out with them compared to whites. They call out bullshit like Caitlyn Jenner calling himself a woman, and laugh about it!
As to Chartreuse, you’re just repeating the Marxist argument that apathy towards work comes from alienation from one’s work (or something like that). People tend to work less hard at stuff that doesn’t seem meaningful.
The problem is that all work, whether in a capitalistic setting or not, requires doing a lot of boring stuff, that’s has no immediate value. And Asians, and to a lesser extent whites, are really good at doing boring, meaningless stuff for long periods of time. Asians (and to a lesser extent whites) even choose to do more “boring” detailed-oriented hobbies in their spare time, compared to other groups. Asians will spend their free-time playing really detail-oriented video games, where the value of learning the rules may not be obvious at first, but they reap the rewards later on once they’ve mastered the rules. These traits probably came about due to large-scale farming.
Also, Asians, have a lot less ADHD, which benefits one in doing boring, menial work. Some amount of ADD symptoms are probably good for creativity, but for doing boring stuff, ADHD sucks big time (i can tell you from personal experience).
That’s part of the reason why Asians are stereotyped as being hard-workers and conformists, doing whatever their bosses tell them to do. Not because they’re afraid of their boss, or of not making money, but they find it a lot less mentally painful to engage in boring stuff for long periods of time.
Most black people spend their free time in sports or socializing or watching TV. Nothing wrong with that, doesn’t even necessarily mean they’re stupid because of it, it’s just that blacks have lower internal resistance towards feeling bored..
I agree, in short, that “hard working” and “lazy” are ambiguous, politically-loaded terms, but I think the common-sense definition of hard-working is “able to spend lots of time doing really boring stuff”, and lazy just means the opposite. So maybe blacks really are hard-working (able to boring stuff for long periods of time), and just choose not to, because they “hate the Man”, but I doubt it.
Just look at what different groups like to do in their spare time, and you’ll find out whether they’re “lazy” or “hard-working”
In high school I used to see a therapist who would always correct me when I said I was lazy. “You’re not motivated,” he would say. He told me the word “lazy” should be removed from our vocabularies.
indeed.
lazy = no team spirit or “teen spirit” as few ever mature socially beyond their teens.
hard-working = team spirit, esprit de corp,
whatever.
they smell the same.
that is,
they are equally as rank and high.
from the npr 100, http://www.npr.org/programs/specials/vote/list100.html.
Hispanics are not introverted ..not sure where you got that from
Mexicans are more introverted than blacks. About the same level as whites, in fact.
You can’t make generalizations about all Hispanics though, they’re too diverse.
I was diagnosed incorrectly.
I hate taking shots every two weeks.
Get better! Your unique (if somewhat peculiar) contributions make this blog interesting!
Actually nevermind.
wait, can I delete comments?
No you cannot.
I understand what you mean. I am unique but I understand that the video says I can’t get better but yes therapy, I am doing that. I hate not being able to change my posts, my impulsivity make me a bad proofreader. So many errors.
comments not posts, this is pumkins blog not mine
LOL! I need to stop posting comments without thinking about what I’m saying, or at least re-read before submitting.
Anyhow, good luck animekitten
i’m pretty sure it’s mongoloidism.
I like your avatar
Lastly, before I shut my computer down, I wanna state that racism/discrimination obviously exists. Normally, these negative attitudes come about for a reason. I just don’t buy that that’s the main reason blacks suck in life compared to whites, or Gentiles suck in life compared to Jews.
In fact, a lot the hatred I see coming from Gentiles towards Jews reminds me of the stuff I hear blacks say against whites. I hear blacks complain whites are arrogant, only look out for their own, are RAYCIST!, are too uptight, pretentious, ectcetera, ectcetera…
Then I come on the Internet and hear white Gentiles say the same about Jews. It’s so hilarious!
So I assume their probably a grain of truth in these statements, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that’s why some groups fail compared to others. If group A evinces negative attitudes towards group B, that doesn’t mean group B is failing because of group A…
When I was a kid I was fascinated by black panthers.
so am i. like huey newton, bobby seale, elbert “big man” howard, huey lewis, and the news.
what?
“shower” time.
I thought that’s what Pumpkin meant at first.
I think Huey Newton may have been an HBDer. Or at least he studied evolutionary theory via Robert Trivers. Check out his comments starting at 8:00. Heavy stuff man!!!
why is chartreuse making sense today? less alcohol than usual?
yes. it’s because you’re drinking less than usual.
…the people were astonished at his doctrine:
For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes./
The most offensive example is Downs Syndrome (low IQ) and East Asians (high IQ) both at one time being considered Mongoloids.
Yes, but it is just because they have a similar physical apparence. But you are comparing 2 totally unrelated phenomenons. Being East Asian which is the result of thousands of years of evolution. And being trisomic which is the result of an extra chromosom.
I mean, if another chromosomic pairing error gives a dark skin and a flat nose to the individuals who carry it, would you consider that negroids and these people belong to a same group ?
Look at Reginald Cholmondoley’s link above
I think all that matters is whether two organisms are alike. It does not matter WHY they are alike. In theory, you could have a clone on another planet that looked and acted exactly like you in every way, and even though it shared no common ancestors with you whatsoever, was more similar to you than any creature on Earth, including your closest blood relatives. Indeed this was the plot of the poignant movie “Another Earth”
I’m not a fan of the modern biological practice of monophyletic group taxonomic classification in which descendants of a common ancestor are grouped together, regardless of actual similarity. because it ignores convergent evolution and accidental likeness.
file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Bob/Desktop/Imblackyall.PNG
LOL that didn’t work…
There!
It’s missing labels. However, I’m guessing the left is the purported origin of your genome. Congrats