Commenter faigmel said:
YOU HAVE INDICATED THAT ADAPTABILITY IS THE MEASURE OF HUMAN INTELLIGENCE. I AGREE . LOOD AT OSS AND SOE EXECUTIVE AGENTS IN OCCUPIED FRANCE DURING WORLD WAR TWO. YOU ALSO ESTIMATED DONALD TRUMP’S IQ AT ABOUT 125, TED CRUZ IQ ESTIMATED AT APPROXIMATELY 145. .NOW THAT TRUMP HAS BEATEN A FIELD OF SEVENTEEN CANDIDATES, IT APPEARS THAT SOCIAL INTELLIGENCE HAS “TRUMPED” COGNITIVE INTELLIGENCE.
First of all, I cringe at the distinction he makes between social intelligence and cognitive intelligence. Intelligence, by definition, is a cognitive property of the brain so the term “cognitive intelligence” is redundant in my opinion, and the idea that “social intelligence” is non-cognitive is thus oxymoronic.
That’s not to deny that there are non-cognitive mental traits that enhance one’s social success, but factor analysis would objectively classify these as personality traits, not cognitive functions, and thus should not be included in any subset of abilities called “social intelligence”.
It’s strange how so many people distinguish social intelligence from cognitive abilities, and yet no such separation is made for mathematical, verbal, or spatial abilities. The implication is that social intelligence, is not actually intelligence, but just personality traits. But in fact, measures of social intelligence are included in some of the oldest, most traditional classical measures of IQ: the Picture Arrangement and Comprehension subtests both gauge social comprehension and were included in the original Wechsler intelligence scales dating back to the 1930s, and some of the test items had their roots in WWI IQ testing and the original Binet scale.
Not only does social intelligence have the deepest of roots in 20th century IQ testing, but as another commenter noted, the majority of anthropologists and biologists believe that the cognitive ability to navigate complex social situations is what caused brain size to triple in 4 million years of human evolution!
So if social reasoning is such a major part of human intelligence, does that mean I was wrong to estimate Ted Cruz’s IQ as 20 points higher than Donald Trump’s?
Not necessarily. It’s possible that Cruz overall cognition is much higher than Trump’s, even while his social cognition is lower.
It’s also possible that Trump had certain non-cognitive personality traits that the general public liked, making him seem more socially intelligent than he actually is. Being likeable and being socially intelligent are not the same thing.
It’s also possible that Trump is simply much better looking than Ted Cruz and thus didn’t need social IQ to beat him. One could argue that it was Cruz who showed incredible social IQ to have gone as far as he did, given his appearance.
Perhaps the most important factor in Trump’s victory is the fact that unlike all the other candidates (except for my hero Bernie Sanders), Trump was not owned by special interests funding his campaign. This was a huge advantage because it allowed him to speak directly to what the people wanted instead of pandering to what his donors wanted.
Having said all that, Trump has definitely demonstrated social intelligence, and overall intelligence. F. Scott Fitzgerald famously claimed there are no second acts in American life, but Trump has proven adaptable to have three successful acts:
real-estate tycoon
reality TV star
republican candidate
But Trump’s political victory will prove to be a hollow one if he can’t beat Hillary in a general election. It’s one thing to win a Party nomination by running to an ideological extreme, but the real test of his intelligence will be whether he can adapt his campaigning style to the broader electorate.
It’s going to be tough to win with his sky high unpopularity among Hispanics. I don’t see how he wins them over without backtracking on his tough stance against immigration, and doing so will alienate his white base. One wild card is blacks. If he can convince them that they are hurt even more by illegal immigration than whites are, given that blacks and illegal immigrants compete for the same jobs, and blacks are sometimes ethnically cleansed from neighborhoods by illegal immigrants, he might be able to chip away at Hillary’s huge monopoly with black voters.
Another unexpected area where Trump might be able to put Hillary on the defensive is her controversial Iraq war vote in 2002 which cost her the Democratic nomination to Barack Obama in 2008. That vote has always haunted Hillary in Democratic primaries, but she’d never thought she’d have to worry about it while running against a Republican. But unlike most other Republicans, Trump is not puppet for the neocons, and is on record opposing the Iraq war, almost from the jump.
Pumpkin Person 
*”One wild card is blacks. If he can convince them that they are hurt even more by illegal immigration than whites are, given that blacks and illegal immigrants compete for the same jobs, and blacks are sometimes ethnically cleansed from neighborhoods by illegal immigrants, he might be able to chip away at Hillary’s huge monopoly with black voters.*”
I heard on CNN the other day, their poll shows Hillary up by 13%. Non-Hispanic Blacks are 12% of the population.
So it’s gonna be tough.
I saw on MSNBC he would win (different overall poll) 11% of the Black vote (and 14% of the Latino vote), and in the primaries he did about the same as other Republicans among Black Republicans.
He’s just too racist or something..lol
*”is on record opposing the Iraq war, almost from the jump.”*
The Howard Stern interview says otherwise.
Keep in mind Trump just makes stuff up about his record.
Trump was never a big proponent of the Iraq war. He gave very lukewarm support of it on the Howard Stern show
“Do you support the Iraq war”
“Yeah, I suppose so, you just never know who the enemy is. I just wish it had been done right the first time”.
Lukewarm, yes, but definitely more in favor than against…
In American Politics, that enough. When he goes after Hillary she will bring that up, and the American people a. won’t take time to watch the video, and b. the pundits on both sides won’t differentiate between moderate support and gung-ho support, after all I bet Hillary did not gung-ho support it either…
My dad has a WAIS tested 136 IQ (what norms) and he held a similiar view to Trump, saying that he said later’ “I just have to trust that the Bush administration knows something we don’t”
Too much trust in the system lol
Hillary actually part of the senate that officially voted to AUTHORIZE the war. She gave the war bipartisan legitimacy. She gave a speech on the senate floor saying Iraq had links to al-Qaida. That’s way more culpability than Trump’s off the cuff comment on a talk show. If he’s smart he’ll hammer her on that point.
Wow.
That’s disappointing.
I always knew her Middle East Policy was bad, but come on.
I’ll still vote for her over Trump, however.
She was senator from New York at the time & had to prove she could be tough in the Middle East (a big issue in New York where folks worry about Israel). Also, as a woman she had to prove she could be a tough future president. Her vote backfired when the war turned out to be the worst mistake in U.S. history
You should watch the documentary “Bibi’s war” if you get the chance..
Bill Clinton tried to negotiate a Palestinian-Israeli truce, first with Rabin and then with Netanyahu, at one point they describe Bill Clinton “screaming, and raving at Netanyahu”, the Prime Minister succeeding Trump’s first term, Ehud Barak, a Liberal, also refused to work with Clinton, fearing he would be assassinated like Rabin.
I think now adays standing up to Netanyahu is okay, he’s too much of an extremist, and Jews realize having the Iran deal, seems to actually be better for the nation of Israel; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keT79ajA540
Ben Shapiro tweeted something about adding a new Child to his family (his son was born this morning), and a comment appeared ‘let’s send all four of you to the gas chamber’, to which Ben Shapiro had the balls to retweet!
The account which initially tweeted that was called “Yuge Elephant” with the picture of an Elephant with Trump hair.
Fuck Donald Trump. Stop making excuses for him or his brain dead trailer trash supporters. It’s just not worth it to vote for him.
Never Trump!
I like Trump more than I like you. I view Trump as someone who takes more risks than you take. I view him as someone who challenges the status quo, or at least has a worldview that challenges the status quo, more than you do.
I don’t know, though. I’ve read some of your life story (in your own words) and you may have taken more risks at some time in the past, and maybe if you were in his position you would be more like him. (Of course, you probably won’t be in his position, or Oprah’s, or…)
I view you as, essentially, a conservative. I have nothing to lose and I speak my mind. My life would be better if I moved to Canada and somehow got welfare there. (I’m also mentally ill and have a higher IQ than you. On the plus side, you’ve listed some ideas that I’ve found interesting, and your blog is one of the few that I read. There’s a sense of almost-but-not-quite-there that I keep getting from your blog posts. You come so close and yet so far, to me anyway.)
He regularly says things that cause the media to try to pillory him, but as it turns out, he struck a chord because, clearly, many people are sick of the media. Many people are sick of the (US) institutions that you place so much faith in (as a Canadian).
I originally wasn’t going to vote at all, but I voted for Trump in the primary (and will again) because of exactly who wants me to not vote for Trump (and who downplays him, writes him off, insults him, etc. All of the professional yuppies, the sanctimonious hypocrites, the assorted Eurotrash cucks, the petty-bourgeois middle-class foreigners, the MSM liars, etc. You were wrong about Trump before. I predict Trump wins 2016.
I always thought he would win, probably from about Late July 2015.
If Bernie’s the nominee, he’s out. No chance. Period.
With Hillary he has a decent chance, but she’s still the slight favorite.
Why are you so against him? Because you feel he’s inflaming a backlash against Hispanics? If he cuts down on illegal immigration, in the long run that might be good for the Hispanics that are here legally.
Well, perhaps I’m irrational, I do have Generalized Anxiety Disorder, but he is going to incite a race war. It’s going to be bad. You’re smart, you’re readers are smart, but the average person is not, and hence the fact that I am White Hispanic, means that I will not be accepted by Whites/Trumpkins in a race war. Period. I have to look out for my own interests.
To him/his people “illegal” does not actually mean what it means, it means literally an Hispanic (or rather any Hispanic Non-Citizen), I’ll post a link later.
Plus, I can not wrap my mind around the notion that he is not a tool.
Anyone who can not see that Trump is trolling, and is just going to overcompensate for his inability to immediately fix the world, by Hitler-esque stuff, is probably not that bright.
Plus, he genuinely is terribly unstable, he might nuke China.
Bottom line;
“I’ll take a third world hellhole over a post-apocalyptic Nuclear Wasteland”
-Me
You think Trump is a tool? His whole appeal is that he’s seen as the one candidate who is not a tool. Who do you think he’s a tool for?
But I understand your fear of a race war. If he tries to deport all the undocumented Americans, things could get ugly.
But then if you think he’s just a liar, a troll, and an insincere fraud, who is playing his fans for fools, then you needn’t worry about him following through on his campaign promises.
I am awaiting the results of a Y-DNA marker test, which connects to cousins (so it can roughly predict some overall/autosomal ancestry),
supposed to arrive between May 11 and May 25…..
I’m hoping to just hand it to a Trump youth and not be deported.
But you know, the Jews run the DNA testing industry 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
Perhaps he is a regional political machine tool, which is, in a way breaking from the national machine. It seems like good old Italians in the Northeast know this Xenophobia well, as they were once the victims of it, and then are marketing it to the whole country, because if Trump wins, it’s best for their business interest.
“When people tell you who they are, believe them, the first time”
-Maya Angelou
Nervously awaiting a psycho-Analytic post on me! Lol!
*”All of the professional yuppies, the sanctimonious hypocrites, the assorted Eurotrash cucks, the petty-bourgeois middle-class foreigners, the MSM liars”*
AKA, all intelligent people.
I think society is far more functional with them in charge as opposed to Trumpkins who have unusually high amounts of Neanderthal ancestry, leading to crippling aggression to the point of dysfunctionality in their daily lives and communities.
Does it ever occur to you that Trump was sent by those people you name to make it look like things are changing/ the “fed up Whites” crowd are being listened to?
He was a cuck until Obama came to office.
Mike Tyson.
Jewish daughter,
the list goes on….
No offense pumpkin, I have great respect for you and your blog;
but I think people in the marginalized HBD community tend to not be able to differentiate between “cultural marxist nonsense” and reality, especially with this whole Trump thing.
Trump is nuts, Trump is unstable.
Trump is a fraud (a poor businessman)
Trump has no idea what the hell he is talking about.
Trump is as Ted Cruz, says, “a textbook case of a pathological liar”
Trump is completely insincere.
These are not MSM lies. These a realistic/most likely true facts, based on observation.
And Hillary*
Trump is a glutton, stupid pig, wrongly arrogant, materialistic, empty of spirit, of philosophical affectation and of developed empathy, he embodies all the traits that define a sub-human.
But he is the average joey, as that movie Idiocracy, in a world where many in the West have become ” enlightened ” he is the only one among the presidential candidates, who says what is most important to the New Rome, USA , as well as to Europe, the control of mass immigration.
You would not mind if millions of Muslims were to Mexico *
There is a list of priorities for ”countries” or specific space/time, geography/people, and the massive control of mass immigration is in the top 3.
I suspect him and think it’s all a circus. He pretends to be in favor of the existential rights of white people in the US. It is part of controlled opposition. Chutzpah/ audacity !!
The most cynical of (wo)men are in power and he could well be one more.
Hillary is false and insincere/a total hack,
and some of her actions related to Bengahzi show gross incompetence, but perhaps not criminality.
”show gross incompetence, but perhaps not criminality.”
..
I don’t like Hillary, but it’s true the right has not even come up with a scenario of wrongdoing at the part of Hillary, however, she was sort of naive about hackers.
She was in her Sixties at the time, and had not lived as a member of the general populace for so long, so perhaps she was genuinely naive.
But Bill Clinton was a DINO, and as Secretary of State she was too.
I see no reason to vote for her over Bernie in my state’s upcoming primary…
.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/rampage/wp/2016/05/07/ivy-league-economist-interrogated-for-doing-math-on-american-airlines-flight/
An Italian removed from a plane for doing Math, my word!
He’s an Arab writing in Arabic, obviously.
Get it now?
These people are going to be the death of the United States.
We are dicks to the Lower-IQ races, with the Prison-Industrial complex, some genuine Police Brutality, why do these APES get a pass?
Why?
White Trailer trash is the biggest threat to the U.S., of all.
You may scoff/think I have been misled by the media,
but..if Donald J. Trump is elected President of the United States, there is a reasonable possibility that his behavior and use of power could kill a majority of the world’s population.
It’s not a lie, it’s not MSM propaganda. It’s simply reality.
”First of all, I cringe at the distinction he makes between social intelligence and cognitive intelligence. Intelligence, by definition, is a cognitive property of the brain so the term “cognitive intelligence” is redundant in my opinion, and the idea that “social intelligence” is non-cognitive is thus oxymoronic.”
Relatively right.
in the big picture perspective, EVERY behavior is par excellence, COGNITIVE.
abstract concepts tend to be logically and broadly flexible, because there are many contexts when they can be fit.
But, specifically speaking, cognitive intelligence is or can be understood as the ”pure” or mechanic/operational cognitive use of intelligence, for example, in the school or in the work. A impersonal approach of intelligence, what iq tests tend to measure.
When personality is neutralized, when human beings act exactly as robots or machines.
Psychopaths are one of the smartest in the social intelligence, MOST of (extroverted) ”socially intelligent” people ARE NOT exactly socially-smart OR SELF-REFLEXIVE, when they know how society really work (socially-knowledgeable) and use it CONSCIOUSLY to their own.
((((((consciously))))
There are two situations
– when you really develop a great knowledge about social mechanisms
– when you born with lucky to fit earlier-easily within the society when you live, easy adaptation is wrongly understood as ”intelligence”, indeed, in the general picture, is intelligence, but in this context, intelligence will be the ability to build personal advantages to itself, your fundamental definition of intelligence IS the definition of social intelligence (social psycho-cognitive domain).
A average joey who have succesfull social life is not exactly socially smartER, but lucky because he born in society when most people (at least 50%) will fit with him, their personality, intrinsic motivations and so on.
So, you can born with psycho-cognitive strenghts to understand society, but not ”to adapt” yourself in this same society, specially because the best adapted of western societies and based on materialistic perspective tend to be high-functioning ”anti-social” people.
BUT psychopaths are fundamentally selfishly smart AND NOT socially or collectively, most part of time, if humans are quintessentially a social species, psychopaths look aberrant or naturally maladjusted.
I also think instead ”social intelligence” for this first group, the use the term ”psychological intelligence”, because generally psychological intelligence will mean = intrapersonal and interpersonal skills, overall understanding of human (or other group) behavior, while generally social intelligence will be specifically interpersonal.
Very self-confident people tend not to be very self-knowledgeable.
One of the forces that made some people become very self-aware is not their qualities but their defects. ”Solve problems”, solve non-problems don’t exist, solve non-problems is the same than ”sustain what you interpret as correct chain of operationality”, the logical/pragmatic thinking.
to solve of course based on this context.
Here’s a blogpost I wanted to bring to pumpkinperson’s attention: http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/05/04/myers-race-car-versus-the-general-fitness-factor/
What do you think?
Trump is a vapid, empty-headed blowhard. He has some grasp on underpinning social dynamics – that’s it. He’s the product of a shrewd, stern business man and an imported bimbo. He has trumped himself up by riding his yes-men and by being a general blowhard. His rise was interesting; his fall will be tremendous.
At any rate, scout the poll-data. Trump loses utterly to Hillary – and his entire “brand” name will fall as it happens.
Look forward to the Trump name being associated with “loser” on the one side, and “bigot” on the other, forever on.
But this is really a loss. Ted Cruz was by far the greatest conservative running since Reagan. He is ultra-sharp, and he could have defeated Hillary. He can posit a case unlike anyone I’ve see. He would demolish Hillary.
At least I can look forward to the total deflation of the trumpsters.
Thank you Michael.
Finally someone who sees the truth!
Pumpkin. We all know how to defeat Clinton. Her weaknesses are easy to spot. The more intelligent question is answering: How do we defeat Trump?
We’ve seen that most of the ads/attacks on Trump didn’t work. What should Clinton do to increase her chances?
Make a post about it an we’ll see your ability to adapt.
The main question is not the smartest or ”dumbest”, but
the smarts who are ALSO fittest or adaptable to the environment where they are, of course, when they are children, because in the adulthood, potentials disappear and change to ”achievements”.
we don’t live in a absolut SMART ENVIRONMENT but in a relative emulation of natural environment.
this explain why a lot of very smart people are not adaptatives.
near to death, the men have a bunch of achievements and little potential.
LET ME CLARIFY MY POSITION ON ‘SOCIAL’ INTELLIGENCE. WHAT I WAS DESCRIBING WAS SOCIABILITY AS EXPRESSED BY YOU IN CONTRASTING BLACKS, CAUCASIANS AND ASIANS. YOU INDICATE THAT A BLACK PERSON WITH IQ OF SEVENTY APPEARED SMARTER THAN A CAUCASIAN WITH SIMILAR LOW IQ. COGNITION EFFECTS ARE DIFFICULT TO SEPARATE FROM LIKEABILITY PSYCHOPATHY.AND SOCIABILITY
WHAT TRUMP DID DIFFERENTLY FROM THE OTHER CANDIDATES WAS SPEAK AT AN 8 YEAR OLD LEVEL RATHER THAN THE USUAL 11 YEAR OLD LEVEL WHEN INITIALLY ATTACKED HE CLEVERLY RESPONDED IN A SYMPATHETIC CHILDLIKE MANNER USING WORDS LIKE MEAN , NASTY AND UNFAIR TO DESCRIBE HIS DETRACTORS. HE WAS LIKE AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHER WITH SIMPLE PHRASING AND REPETITIONS ,eg WE ARE GOING TO BE SO SO GREAT. WE ARE GOING TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN. HIS ATTACKERS DID APPEAR NASTY WHEN THEY CALLED HIM UNAMERICAN RACIST AND DANGEROUS. HE KNEW THAT POLICY DID NOT MATTER SO HE COULD CHANGE THESE AS OFTEN AS HE WANTED .PERHAPS SOCIAL IINTELLIGENCE INCLUDING PSYCHOPATHY SHOULD BE GIVEN GREATER WEIGHT IN IQ TESTING.
Here’s a humble idea;
How about a candidate that believes in Human Bio-Diversity, perhaps even a Biologist? not pretend White Nationalist with a severe personality disorder (Trump).
Why the nickname
Another William Playfair***
My first post was on statistics, and William Playfair is considered the father of modern statistics…………………………………………………………………………
How you interpret the criminality rates in USA by ”races”**
I’m an amateur. I’m more of an Algebra/Trig/Calculus type guy, but….
Blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime, and it actually makes the “Hispanic” (basically just Mestizo here in the U.S. of A), rate, look less than it actually is.
I.E. apparently Blacks commit 81% of the Gun violence in New York City, but non-Hispanic Blacks represent 23% of the NYC population; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City
Non-Hispanic Whites are at 33%. Asians/other are at virtually zero, apparently.
Blacks are committing about 3.5x the crimes in that area that they should.
But WITHOUT Blacks, theoretically,
Whites are about 43%
Hispanics are about 37%
Asians/Other: at 20%
so….. Hispanics would commit 16/19 ths of the remaining crime (84% of the Gun Violence), so they definitely have Blacks to thank for their crime rates looking less negative!!!!!!!!!!!
Perhaps more useful:
Black to White: (81/3)(33/23)= Blacks are about 39x more likely to commit a gun crime!(than Whites)
Hispanic to White: (16/3)(33/29)= Hispanics are about 6x more likely to commit a gun crime (than Whites)
Maybe NYC liberals like George Pataki, and Michael Bloomberg are the real racists!!!!!!!!!
Although I didn’t say it directly, that is under the scenario of non-Spanic Blacks committing 81% of the crime, Hispanics of any race committing 16% and non-Spanic Whites committing 3%…….
Many hispanics are relatively recent immigrants, but hispanic group seems have better standard living than american blacks.
This differences are merely by demographic/proportional nature of different types of cognitive quantitative types.
euros and east asians make better semi-enslaved organic robots than NAM’s.
higher % of ”working class” types among NAM’s basically, people who are not technically adapted to the ”modern” society BUT they tend to be ultimately adaptable because higher sex drive impulse in early age and sexually typical, less native americans, who, seems, have one of the lowest fertility rates in US.
type K have specially the cognitive advantage. If not, they would be fuc*ed, 😉
Pitbulls ARE violents**
No, it’s ”just’ the higher proportion of violentable individuals among this domesticated wolfes population.
BASIC IQ TEST (contextualized to the real world)
Many pitbulls are violent, but most them are not
If many pitbulls are violent,
all them will be violent*
Interesting that pitbulls are very muscular canine race.
How mercan government define ”nativeness”*
People who can define themselves as ”native americans” or northern amerindians*
It makes sense, given the lower IQs of blacks and to a certain extent Hispanics, that they make poorer workers than Whites and East Asians. Higher IQ individuals find ways to make their work more efficient.
In America, blacks and less educated Jews are severely underrepresented as construction workers. And this has to do with their low visual spatial abilities. So are poor East Asians, but their issue has nothing to do with their visual abilities, but their performance IQ, which is lower than that of Whites of the same economic class. And the fact, that East Asians are physically weaker for hard labor.
Asians are like Engineers, they are all about doing things efficiently/visualizing how to do them efficiently.
Whites are the scientists who come up with initial idea, Asians perfect/contribute to it.
Jews get the White a patent and the Asians then resent them 🙂
Like I posted above ‘White dominance in quantum mechanics'(Einstein was not gentile btw), may be caused by their being more genius Whites, considering there is only a small gap in White-East Asian intellect but Whites have a higher IQ SD.
There’s very little evidence showing whites have a higher SD
wouldn’t the fact that Whites are sheerly more diverse than Asians and Blacks than Whites, indicate otherwise?
Blacks are genetically far more diverse than Whites.
The more evolved a race is, the less diverse it is.
Based on the % of black men who are jailed and compare with hispanic men, how income averages of both groups are so similar*
Mein teshtosterone levels: total 346,20 ng/dl (175 a 781) free: 8,737 ng/dl (17-40 years old: 3,4-24,6 ng/dl)
https://www.quora.com/What-is-your-testosterone-level
anecdotal comparison
Blacks are genetically far more diverse than Whites.
The more evolved a race is, the less diverse it is.
Genetic diversity is irrelevant unless it codes for phenotype diversity. Whites could be more diverse in the portion of DNA that affects measurable traits.
“Genetic diversity is irrelevant unless it codes for phenotype diversity. Whites could be more diverse in the portion of DNA that affects measurable traits.”
Yes, but doesn’t it.
Because they’ve had less time to evolve, a Vietnamese person is going to be more similar to a Mongolian,
while a Kenyan has had more time to become “comfortable” in his climate so to speak, than someone a birthplace of man (Cameroon in West Africa)….
Because they’ve had less time to evolve, a Vietnamese person is going to be more similar to a Mongolian,
while a Kenyan has had more time to become “comfortable” in his climate so to speak, than someone a birthplace of man (Cameroon in West Africa)….
You’re assuming time is the only thing that affects evolution. There’s also selection pressures. If East Asia has more diverse selection pressures than sub-Saharan Africa, then two random East Asians will be more phenotypically different than two random blacks, despite the fact that differences have had more time to accumulate in Africa.
Caucasoids are certainly more diverse than negroids in some traits, despite being a newer race. Unmixed Negroids are virtually all black in color (excluding albinos) while caucasoids range from white skin, blond hair blue eyed Nordics to black skinned brown eyed black haired south Asians
blacks would be more genotypically diverse**
Caucasoids are certainly more diverse than negroids in some traits, despite being a newer race. Unmixed Negroids are virtually all black in color (excluding albinos) while caucasoids range from white skin, blond hair blue eyed Nordics to black skinned brown eyed black haired south Asians
Read correctly please. I was talking about Whites, not Caucasoids in general. Whites only differ more than Blacks in eyes and hair color.
All Caucasoids are not pure, South Indians are mixed with Australoids, Arabs and North Africans with Negroids, and Turks, Russians, people from the Caucasus and Central Asians with Mongoloids.
Concerning facial features, Arabs and Nordics are more similar.
Concerning brain and body shape, Nordics and East Asians are more similar.
This racial classification which put all Caucasoids together is pretty arbitrary.
Well you can’t compare the entire Negroid race (blacks) with just a subset of the Caucasoid race (whites). It’s apples and oranges.
pumpkinperson-
I just want to get some clarity here;
you’re saying that Blacks may have the most GENOTYPICAL diversity, but that does not mean they have any more PHENOTYPICAL diversity (and Asians vice versa), etc.
Jensen claimed black Americans have a smaller IQ SD than white Americsns, so either their greater genetic variability does not include IQ genes or their IQs are largely not genetic
Well you can’t compare the entire Negroid race (blacks) with just a subset of the Caucasoid race (whites). It’s apples and oranges.
Read carefully please. This really getting annoying. I explained why this racial classification make no sense.
By the way, Negroids = Black Africans, Bushmen and Pygmies excluded.
Wrong. The term Congoid excludes bushmen who are Capoid. Negroid includes them.
Okay. It’s surprising…..
Wrong. The term Congoid excludes bushmen who are Capoid. Negroid includes them.
Sophism…
The point is BLACKS (i.e. Congoids) are more diverse than WHITES (i.e. Europeans).
We were talking about Whites, you are the one who talked about Caucasoids.
The vast majority of Blacks are Congoids, and when someone talk about a black man, we simply assume he is talking about a congoid man.
As if the first circle represent black american population and the second white american population.
The little circle (could) represent the proportion of violent(able) people, those who are very risky to become or engage in explicit and (((pure))) violent actions (because morons tend to be indirectly and unconsciously violent all the time, the normalcy).
based on evolutionary path of ”domestication’, BUT, i hope, eugenic subsequent processes
pacify
and (to)
smartfy
over the time the proportion of violent individuals (able) decrease, then being displaced from germinal epicenter which prevail characteristics of each ‘Joey average’ of each population.
So basically, just create an environment to at least allow some Blacks not to be criminals?
In a poor and unstable environment, R-type prosperate and they are more prone to have higher proportion of violent(able, potential to become or engage in pure criminal behavior, a ”natural disposition”, ”born to kill”) types.
But i think the type of woman who prefer R-type also increase when the R-type man increases.
“Allows” isn’t quite the right word. It should be “enables”…
So Santo – It appears from my personal encounters and reading things online, that East Asians generally shun academic subjects that are very verbal oriented, and research that requires a lot of reading comprehension, as opposed to analyzing black and white technical material.
Furthermore, East Asian College students in the Americas have been advocating for the death of the “liberal arts” curriculum that one finds in Western education. It’s all about politics and dominance, East Asians want to see Whites lose their influence in their verbal subjects like History, Philosophy and Psychology, which East Asians generally avoid, because they are much weaker, for the harder visual oriented sciences (not because it is interesting, but more pragmatic by nature). HBD makes a lot of sense in this observation.
Also, East Asia cannot compare to the culture, or sophisticated culture, that defined the greatness of Western Civilization. It first began with Greece, then Rome, then the Industrial and Scientific Revolutions…Anyway, Whites have dominated the entire spectrum of subjects, whether it’s writing or quantum mechanics. And given the strong verbal ability of Whites, they have managed to communicate their research more effectively and fluidly.
Yes, JS,
what make whites, as a collective bio-entity, singular, is that ‘they’ have very talented, hard working types AND also geniuses in all spectrum of the human knowledge. They seems much more emotionally complex than east asians, even between very near people, for example, french and italian.
”East Asian College students in the Americas have been advocating for the death of the “liberal arts” curriculum”
This don’t make sense because visual arts need greater (specific) visual spatial skills. The capacity of vivid short term visual memory about something and recreate perfectly or unusually some image in the paper.
He spent long years in isolation and in a selective environment that favored types ” teachers ”, which are above average in intelligence, but not in qualitative terms.
East Asian are qualitatively smarter than the Euro-Caucasians, but they are not, on average, qualitatively smarter.
However, it is still necessary to think if there is a strong environmental factor influencing this population that has not been able, specially today, to sketch large and functional originality. Japan is an interesting case where we come from some decades now, an extraordinary increase of creative achievements of the most diverse nature, that is, that can be viewed.
We already know that a more tolerant culture for originality, has an influence so that people with this potential can express themselves, especially in the cultural part.
Some strange aspects, not to be offensive, because I really like this product. Manga and Japanese anime has the design model, Caucasian faces. I could never understand it. Why**
The faces are the same and vary little in shape.
In return the cartoon made by ” Westerners ” tend to vary more.
Of course it has a lot of creativity and quality in these Japanese work, even more than in many western designs.
I think that east asians can be very good at LATERAL thinking or little-Creativity while some unusual groups among euro-caucasians have higher disposition to the DIVERGENT (deeply lateral) thinking or big-Creativity.
lateral thinking is highly required in cooperative environment, but not so divergent thinking that tend to be very risky.
As I said in another post. from the moment we consider the word ‘talent’, as the ability to emulate genius work perfectly, or nearly so, then the East Asian will appear as one of the most prodigious races.
Or, as some have suggested, we would have reached a stage of human history in which to produce original works became increasingly scarce.
Creativity, whether they like it or not, opponents of this reality, is closely related to mental disorders, and even could be understood as such a mind disorder, but has the potential to be functional. There are not super-normal or super-neurotypicals creative people. There are those who can control their mental exuberance, even as it’s less influential in their minds.
I already thought that the way people think, can influence how they will be in these verbal tests.
It has that idea that East Asian are more like holistic thinkers while WEIRD (liberal and urban white people) are more specific thinkers.
In fact, even for genetic reasons, the East Asian may be weaker in the verbal part (neanderthal influence**). Some say no, Asian languages are very difficult compared with Western languages. For our perspective, certainly, but many of the most complex languages, from a Western perspective, as created by man, they were invented by people with lower cognitive ability.
Supposedly the most difficult languages required greater sophistication or were just emerging spontaneously, as most must have arisen, and no one in this tribes thought to make them less difficult and more efficient.
However, the role of communication is not to sketch sophistication in its grammar, but to be efficient in its primary function, communicate.
I hear that Chinese is an easy language grammar wise, much easier than let’s say Arabic (invented by less intelligent individuals from a hot desert region). The Arabic script, on the other hand, is less visual oriented than the Chinese ideograms and Latin Alphabet.
It seems to me that East Asians feel that Whites have been too privileged in their studies of universal knowledge (what we call Liberal Arts in college), essentially subjects like Philosophy and History, that makes one open up to the world. They have this assumption that these subjects are easier than let’s say Physics (where East Asians study very hard, but are not necessarily good at). I believe East Asians do not make good researchers in the subjects that Whites dominate, because of their poorer performance IQ, tied to their verbal abilities. Analyzing historical facts and philosophical notions, requires in depth reading and expressing them in writing, also in speech, which East Asians are significantly weaker. Again, HBD provides a reason as to why East Asians generally shun intellectual studies, and engage in more vocational and pragmatic functions. They were evolved to be technically efficient, sort of a bureaucrat working with “1” or “0” function, and not analyzing gray areas.
”East Asian are ((((qualitatively)))) smarter than the Euro-Caucasians, but they are not, on average, qualitatively smarter.”
maledetta attention deficit
QUANTIIIIIIITATIVEEEEELYYYY
Santo – Spaniards are perhaps the most complex of the Euros. You have an entire range, from the lowest class, the very clannish to high class, and the most open minded. HBD Chick talked about this in her blog. It has to do with a combination of genes inherited, because Spaniards have native Iberian, Jew, Muslim and Germanic ancestry from their history.
I’m not sure if French and Italians are less diverse in emotions than let’s say Norwegians. Scandinavians/Norwegians are very homogeneous, and their history is very uniform, boring, predictable, and not of much of interest, similar to East Asians. Mediterraneans are the most diverse, then Alpine in the middle, and the Nordic subgroup is the most uniform. The more diverse population, the lower the average IQ, but there are striking geniuses found among them. According to these stupid PISA test evaluations, Spain is ranked #18 or something like that, in terms of having smart people. Not bad for a country, that has other good things like good health, good weather and good food.
”Mediterraneans” are more diverse because there are a lot of diversity of caucasoid subraces within them and/or in their countries, caused by its geographical position and because the peoples who live in the mediterranean area tend to be passed by many big historical events, relatively recent, than northern europeans.
”I’m not sure if French and Italians are less diverse in emotions than let’s say Norwegians.”
they are because both of people have greater subracial diversity and different average temperaments, just look for Italy, north and south, greater differences.
but a region where we have a predominance of mediterraneans or any other subraces we will have the tendency to less variability in temperaments, even meds tend to be very emotional and extraverted, sanguine.
One reason Cruz failed is that he was too smart. It’s hard to appeal to a population whose average is more than about 20 IQ points below yours. (I say this not to make excuses for Cruz, whom I detest more than any other candidate, even Hillary.) One place Cruz’s inability to connect because of his intellectual superiority was the failure of his jokes, which invariably fell completely flat because his audience didn’t understand them. The jokes were just a shade too abstract.
You may disagree that Cruz’s intelligence was an impediment. You may have good grounds, given that there are plenty of other explanations for Cruz’s unpopularity. But it seems to me that if you agree that intelligence can be an impediment to political success, then you have accepted a decisive counter-example to your claim that intelligence is ability to adapt.
But it seems to me that if you agree that intelligence can be an impediment to political success, then you have accepted a decisive counter-example to your claim that intelligence is ability to adapt
Not necessarily. One could argue that super intelligent folks fail politically not because intelligence hinders adaptability, but because they have a more difficult challenge to adapt to. Cruz was trying to adapt to an electorate 3 SD below his level, while his competitors only had to adapt to an electorate to 1-2 SD below their level.
In other words, it’d not necessarily that dumber politicians out-adapt smarter ones, but rather that dumber ones don’t have to adapt as much because they are naturally where the voters are.
Does that make sense?
Of course in Cruz’s case, I haven’t seen any evidence that his IQ worked against him, other than your claim that his jokes were too abstract.
This is why a Parliamentary system works slightly better…..
There are different ways intelligence can work against a politician. The most obvious (as with Cruz’s jokes) is that he won’t be understood. The more common result these days is that politicians have to resort to carefully scripted remarks so they won’t be misunderstood. The smarter the candidate, the more phony he or she is forced to be. (That’s not to say this is the only cause for impressions of phoniness.) Trump can be much less phony than Cruz because he’s a lot stupider.
On your other point about high IQ poses a greater adaptive challenge: it seems to me this maneuver can always rescue your definition. For instance, let’s say certain intellectual problems are harder for brighter people. (Which isn’t the case except for very rare instances – but less say there was a broad range of problems that high IQ meant lower performance.) Couldn’t you always explain this simply by analyzing why the IQ people failed on the problem, and then say this aspect of the problem makes it harder for them?
[Occasionally, politicians may have a specific ability to communicate with the less intelligent. Bill Clinton probably falls here.]
On your other point about high IQ poses a greater adaptive challenge: it seems to me this maneuver can always rescue your definition. For instance, let’s say certain intellectual problems are harder for brighter people. (Which isn’t the case except for very rare instances – but less say there was a broad range of problems that high IQ meant lower performance.) Couldn’t you always explain this simply by analyzing why the IQ people failed on the problem, and then say this aspect of the problem makes it harder for them?
Well, if high IQ people fail a certain type of problem because they are lacking a specific cognitive ability, then that’s an intrinsic disability on their part and implies a genuine mental inability to adapt to that particular situation (though if they can still adapt to the majority of problems, they are intelligent).
But if high IQ people fail a certain type of problem because they lack experience with that type of problem, then that needn’t imply an inability to adapt per se, it may simply imply less opportunity to adapt.
Expecting a high IQ person to know what jokes an average person will find funny might be a bit like expecting a Japanese person to know what jokes an American will find funny, or asking a man to know what jokes a woman would find funny. The Japanese man might fail on both tasks, but not because he’s cognitively less able to adapt to social situations, but because he hasn’t had as much time to learn about the American female mind as an American woman has, so the latter’s superiority on such tasks would be spurious.
Hopefully that’s a valid analogy.
But Ted Cruz not withstanding, I would expect high IQ people on average to actually be better at being understood than average IQ people, assuming they were so motivated. The reason is the concept of g by definition indicates that high IQ people are superior on ALL mental abilities, although, the ability to be understood by average people might not meet the criteria for being a true mental ability for the reasons I gave above.
But, the argument you make is a good one, and might be even more a challenge to the concept of g than it is to my definition of intelligence.
raiqiu pipo
The political disadvantage of high IQ is a direct product of ability, not just different experiences.
I use jokes as an example only for clarity. The smarter person is capable of making a stupid joke, but a stupid person is incapable of making a smart joke. (R.B. Cattell actually validated an intelligence test based on what jokes the subject could understand.) Trump could not make a Cruz-level joke, although Cruz could (theoretically, based on IQ considerations) make a Trump-level joke. So, the disadvantage of the smart in communication grows directly out of their ability. The ability creates the possibility of being incomprehensible.
At least that’s my account, which I contend would if proven refute the adaptation definition.