Commenter Mikey Blayze wrote:
Hey Pumpkin? Are you 100% sure there is no secret super low IQ black under class? Because im here to tell you there is -.- You have obviously never seen just how degenerate the inner city is from first hand experience. I spent a great deal of my young adult hood traveling to the inner city from my suburban home, usually for excitement and easy women and I can tell you there is a large group of blacks that have IQ of 75 , possibly lower.The IQ of the homeless is 85. They form groups, a social heirarchy, and co-ordinate together to make what little money they can. I have seen this for myself. I swear on my life there are at least hundreds if not thousands of adult inner city black males that survive solely on robbery and theft and their females survive of the meager financial support from the male activities. Tell me Pumpkin, What would the IQ be of someone who could only think of theft or robbery to make money. Theres a large amount of blacks that get away with this behavior constantly because in the inner city theres little to no police enforcement. The inner city is essentialy a modern day African Savannah. Its called a concrete jungle for a reason. Please do more research on a plausible theory before dismissing it.
I do agree that there are subpopulations of U.S. blacks with IQs below 75. For example scholar Arthur Jensen discovered an entire school district in rural Georgia where the average IQ of late adolescents was about 70. The question was whether these secret subpopulations are large enough to drag the national black IQ average down to 78, instead of the mean of 85 that is typically reported.
One reason for my skepticism is that tests like the Wechsler scales attempt to get extremely representative samples. For example, the 1995 U.S. census reported that 18% of college age blacks had less than a high school diploma (about one fifth); meanwhile 21% of college age blacks in the 1995 norming of the Wechsler adult IQ test also had less than a high school diploma (also about one fifth). Such careful matching of demographic variables gives me confidence that Wechsler norms are valid.
On the other hand, there is enormous IQ variation even among people with the same education, and this is especially true of blacks, so just because the Wechsler scales fully sampled low education blacks, does not mean they fully sampled low IQ blacks.
Scholars Rushton and Jensen wrote:
It is widely known among test developers that although samples are carefully drawn to create a nationally representative sample for the entire population, they are not chosen to get an accurate estimate for subgroups such as Blacks. The most disadvantaged elements in poorer schools in inner cities are rarely, if ever, included.
Thus I decided to take Mikey Blayze’s advice and do more research. Although there are probably few if any studies on the IQs of poor inner city blacks, I did find a paper on the prison population in the Southern United States. The paper reported that the white prisoners averaged IQ 87.66 on the WAIS-R, while the black prisoners averaged 78.47.
However because the WAIS-R was normed in 1978 and the prisoners were apparently tested in 1987, we should probably deduct 2.7 points for inflated norms (the Flynn effect), which reduces the IQs to 84.96 and 75.77 respectively.
It should also be noted that WAIS-R IQs are reported with reference to the entire U.S. population, not just the white population, which averaged IQ 101.4 SD = 14.65 on U.S. norms. Compared to the national white mean and SD, white prisoners were -1.12 SD and black prisoners were -1.75 SD, corresponding to IQs of 83 and 74 respectively, using white norms. Since the black inner city tends to have very high incarceration rates, the IQ 74 of black prisoners might be representative of the black underclass.
This is a bit higher than the rural Georgia black teens who averaged IQ 70. On the other hand, a study of almost all black homeless people in Milwaukee showed an average IQ of 80 (white norms). Averaging black prisoners in the South (IQ 74) with mostly black homeless in Milwaukee (IQ 80) with black teens in rural Georgia (IQ 70) probably gives a reasonable estimate of the IQ of the black underclass, and that estimate is 75 (white norms).
If the black underclass average IQ 75, it makes sense that the average U.S. black is about IQ 85 (white norms) and that the Wechsler samples are probably correct despite probably not sampling inner city blacks.
Pumpkin Person 
Huey P. Newton reportedly scored 74 in an intelligence test in high school. But based on the fact that later in life he got a Ph.D., became the leader of an important political movement and the relative richness of vocabulary and knowledge shown in his speeches I wouldn’t have ever attributed him with such a low I.Q. score. How could You explain this dissonance?
I would think it wasnt a valid IQ test because those achievements are impossible to achieve with an IQ of 74
One of the tenets of science is that theories must be falsifiable in order to be scientific. If every time a low IQ person achieves something great we dismiss the score as invalid, then it becomes impossible to falsify the theory that high IQ is required to achieve greatness and the argument becomes circular:
You need a high IQ to achieve greatness. We know this because everyone who achieved greatness must have a high IQ or they wouldn’t be so great.
I see I got caught in a bias thank you Pumpkin.
The idea of “greatness” by a morally retarded person like Pumpkin can be observed by this emphasis on pseudo-geniuses like Oprah and is very likely to be predominantly invalid.
We live in a world that is controlled by people like Pumpkin, the “the man of action”, those who abundant energy, higher narcisism, higher ((cognitive)) skills and lower analytical precaution.
.
how is he “morally retarded”
wanting to gas the Jews does not make you “morally smart”
The population percentage of the secret black underclass IQ in sum of the total IQ of the US black population would be the average IQ of blacks in the US. So the average if lower from current US black IQ would be caused by a higher percentage of the secret black underclass of the total black population currently and the low IQ of that class bring the average down. So to determine total black IQ we need to know the number of blacks in that class (the secret class) to find the average of total population of black IQ in the US. There needs to be an accurate census of the secret class population number. There was a census in 2010. The IQ of that class I think could be determined by Pumpkin Persons methods and then added to the average in total black population IQ.
Hey, AK, I hope you flourish in life.
You’re right, Anime Kitty.
So if the average IQ of Blacks tested is 85, and the underclass has a 70 IQ, and the average IQ overall is 78, almost half of Blacks half to be in the Underclass.
So it’s not consequential.
The movie Precious is a perfect visual representation of the black underclass.
<blockquote.which reduces the IQs to 84.96 and 75.77 respectively.
Makes complete sense. The average IQ for a criminal is 85 in America, and of course, black criminals will have lower IQ’s than white ones.
Jensen did say there were differences between blacks and whites with IQ 70. Mainly that blacks with IQ 70 seemed normal:
…
What does IQ 70 mean for black and white kids?
One of the explanations is that it’s only a 1 SD gap for blacks and 2 for whites, so whites are 2 SDs away from the average. Jensen argued that blacks at IQ 70 were normal. I would reason that sub-IQ 85 whites to be the most affected by the “wigger” plague. It seems that IQ 85 whites act like blacks while IQ 70 blacks would be more criminally proficient.
I live in the tri-state area and I’ve been around a lot of blacks and I’m almost positive that there is this “black underclass” that is not represented in the data. I’ve seen too much wild behavior and too many idiotic statements to not believe that there WASN’T a black underclass with IQs to drop the average that much.
I also doubt that they’re worried about IQ testing poor inner city blacks (and we know what the case is with poverth; low IQ is one of, if not the biggest reason for low income and impovershed conditons. I would also reason that this low IQ black underclass is also more violent, as I’ve had numerous encounters with blacks and have seen their behavior. They would also have higher testosterone as well.
Your’s and Jensen’s personal opinions don’t mean anything
Carl does have a point, that in a Biological sense, at least, that does seem implausible, it would have to mean simply that a higher proportion of White kids who are retarded/ have IQs of 70, are so organically (the curve is slightly fatter on the left), than Black kids (their IQs go even lower, etc.)
or, that IQ is not an accurate measure of the “ability to reason”
5 thoughts from both eyes:
1. People in the underclass will not wanted to be tested under any circumstance. Anyone asking questions is going to be bad news brown from The Man.
2. By definition, blacks who are really stupid, die very quickly. Survivor bias in data.
3. Many government employees in census bureau and social workers in prison and so forth are not HBD open. They will write off awkward data and samples as ‘methodology errors’ or doctor values to stave off calls of ‘racism’ by their black colleagues and aa hired management.
4. Kurtosis in the lower tail. Most stats assume a bell curve dist of IQ. My hunch is that blacks don’t follow a bell curve distribution. There’s a lot less variation among blacks than whites in my experience.
5. Many half-blacks, count themselves as black for the census, boosting average IQ.
On the other hand:
1. Prison samples are a good proxy. But sampling criminals who got caught doesn’t take into account the smarter ones who didn’t. Perisher bias.
2. Many blacks have adhd and can’t sit still for tests. They would rather mark answers randomly just to get out of the room rather than concentrate.
3. Blacks at that level have routed all their protein in their chromosones to social cognition hence the ‘bizarre’ observation that retarded blacks appear normal and retarded whites look weird. Aesthetics don’t lie.The IQ tests themselves can’t measure social cognition which is a feature of intelligence.
4. IQ test takers benefit from some classroom socialisation and abstract thinking stimulation. Most underclass blacks don’t get that boost.
5. Drug epidemics, physical violence, poor hygiene/sanitation and contact sport dampen circuit neuro-functioning, even in geneticaly gifted individuals.
What must relevant to be analysed is the resilience levels of people. Many blacks seems to have lower psychological resistance or have a “weak mind”, vulnerable to permissive experiences. What today have the partial euphemism “openness”, of course, a very vague and broad concept.
Seems east Asians are the most resilient among macro-human races, on avg of course.
Mental resilience tend to correlates with biological health?
What race relations is saying is true blacks with 85 IQ”s have social skills light years ahead of whites with the same IQ. This trend is also true of physical attractiveness I’ll post the link
Aesthetics don’t lie.
https://www.google.com/?gfe_rd=ssl&ei=urZJV67oDI_M8Af406zIDQ#q=why+black+women+are+less+attractive
I cant post the link directly but this is close enough. Just click the PDF. anyway the charts on the PDF clearly show black males being more attractive than white males of the same IQ (no homo)
black men attract lower IQ females. And the dumbing down of America, signifies black men will be in a great position, when it comes to the dating scene.
black men are actually the most boring group of males, more so than Asians, but they have a superficial charm that overrides their fault.
Mikeyblayze, I Tried posting the link and it wouldn’t let me. That sucks 😡
Kanazawa is an idiot, plain and simple. self report is incredibly subjective The only thing that has actually been proven to be an objective measure of beauty is symmetry. So please show me a study where they measure the different levels of face symmetry across races, instead of self reports between only 3 FUCKING PEOPLE. He goes as far as to say “Recall that women on average are more physically attractive than men” When in reality that isn’t true either. Gay people do exist, so do chubby chasers and again where are the studies of face symmetry between the sexes?
While there are definitely ugly ass blacks girls what I really find attractive is curves and a cute face which trumps skin color(and sometimes intelligence if the relationship is long term). Black women have bigger breasts and buttocks on average. You can call it R selected all you want but if you prefer petite, flat chested women then you have a lot in common with a pedophile.
JS,
“black men are actually the most boring group of males, more so than Asians, but they have a superficial charm that overrides their fault.”
Could you please provide a source for that unsubstantiated claim?
black women are generally unattractive for most men, including their own. more and more black men are with non-black women.
“black women are generally unattractive for most men, including their own. more and more black men are with non-black women.”
Ok how is what the majority find appealing objective beauty?
Because blacks have a higher verbal IQ, and I would assume that blacks and whites matched for IQ 85, blacks would have a higher verbal.
black men as a whole, have the least variety of interests, outside the realm of their stereotypical roles, like menial worker, athlete, entertainer — the usual stuff. And their interests tend to be low brow. Basically, a lack of curiosity.
One thing that Pumpkin forgets to allude – Ashkenazim Jews are all across the spectrum of human endeavor, at least one point in time. They may not be the best, but they’ve done it. From gangsters to professors.
Higher IQ individuals have populations with more varied professions and interests. However, East Asians prove otherwise, in respect to them.
I found this blog post to be interesting.
Why aren’t Jews and East Asians, world class social scientists, despite having higher IQs?
http://akinokure.blogspot.com/2011/07/why-despite-higher-average-iqs-arent.html
Simple, East Asians were successful farmers, and Jews who have dealt with people, were mostly in adversarial roles.
The author thinks lower IQ Caucasoids like Middle Easterners and South Asians make good counselors or advisers, with a tradition of pastorialism, herders and shepherds. He also think East Africans have the potential to give good advice, maybe because they have higher IQs than West Africans (not alluded by the author, but we have discussed East Africans being smarter).
Jews are world class social scientists. I have no idea where that blogger has been the last one hundred years. Theyve dominated economics, psychology and political science. And made strong contributions to philosophy and law.
Asians are probably – even less than blacks which is saying something – able to analyse or theorise on social systems. They have no clue. In the same way many people say most of africa is technically retarded, you may be shocked to know that many east asians would be considered autistic or further along the spectrum than all other races.
Jews – world class scientists like who? Freud being the foremost and he failed. There is theory and there is practice. Jews might be good at theorizing, but they fail in application, simply because Jews came from adversarial roles, and much of their history was of hostility between the host majority and them.
* social scientist
Are you kidding?
Economics: Friedman, Mynsky, Stiglitz, Krugman, Schumpeter, Von Mises etc
Psychology: Freud, Jung, Kahneman, Pinker, Herzberg, Milgram etc
Political Science: Chomsky, Weingast, Kissinger etc
Arguably the applied functions of these disciplines – finance, politics and manipulation, are areas where they have excelled even moreso than in the academy.
Social science IS mostly theory.
You and JS should be the successors to Don Black and David Duke.
This Anti-Jew stuff is just hysteria and not based in fact, to a certain extent of course.
you and Santo I mean.
Suck my balls bitch!! 😁😋
Uiuiuiuiuiuiui
A mico agreshon
And despite all the “technical” verbose, wizardry, jargon spouted and written by Ashkenazi Jews, who have a history of not doing great things that make people happy, none of those people mentioned can surpass Ibn Khaldun – the North African Muslim Intellectual who said that all civilizations succumb to luxury, laziness, indifference and eventual decay, and less civilized groups are always trying to knock on those who are, eventually surpassing them, because the latter group lose their drive to sustain and just want to luxuriate.
Sounds like the White Demographic in America is in trouble, which is why Trump is on the rise!
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160401220714.htm
Heres another pro tip from a non socially clueless non feminist person:
Women hate doing stem because 90% of the guys in those subjects are sexually unappealing.
I would put my money on 4 of those female authors having slept with more business majors than math ones. Maybe even one of the male ones too.
Also, what women say they want has a 0% correlation to who gets to break in her ass on saturday night.
Verstanden?
It’s all about the appearance of the product. People judge a book by its covers.
STEM classes in the Anglosphere suck, because the students are mostly immigrants, who aren’t really interested in science. They take part of a capitalistic paradigm that exploits them in return for a buck. Then there’s the sexually unappealing types that crowd these programs, and it’s a disaster, as to why women avoid them like the plague.
Women respond to cues more than men.
I once attended a conference on the history of Greek science. The crowd consisted mostly of beta nerds taking interest in a very niche topic, 90% White, and there was absolutely no East Asian attendees. There was one attractive lady who was socializing with a male academic who could model for a magazine. So it’s all about looks.
Yes, I take your point about STEM being very immigrant heavy. Thats a big issue for the others, as I’ll explain.
East and South Asian guys are bottom of the male totem pole due to negative stereotyping and to be blunt, a lack of fundamental r-sexual market value.
Numerous psychological studies show merely being in the physical vicinity of nerdy low T losers brings down your SMV to the women around you as women ‘average out’ your value from the men around you and who you associate with.
Strangely, men don’t do that to women.
But it should make a lot of intuitive sense why this would be the case.
In any case, the real world effect is that the 15% of ok to decent looking guys in Real Analysis 101 get tarred with association.
It works just as strong the other way around I can confirm personally.
That’s correct, low t is the word. Those beta nerds were White dudes, thus their t-levels would not be in the low vicinity of East Asian males, and so the Jock nerd was not perceived as poorly, had he was centered around a group of East Asians, which would lower his SMV further.
Canada has a healthier population of White STEM students, especially in Montreal, given its lower population of orientals (which includes South Asians), which repels Whites from taking those disciplines, when comparing to that of Toronto. Quite a number of White female students are in Engineering. America is the most severe, and the country is doomed, in respect to Whites and STEM. Its residents live a Hollywood life of petty status. It will not last, and there will be a rude awakening.
(offtopic)
you mean not everyone can gather and infer information on their own?
no wonder i’m always disappointed at work…
One of the part where hbd look like a cult. I know a lot of lower IQ people who are more lucid than a lot of (((COGNITIVELY))) smart ones.
“create their own information” = super vague, what psychological concepts tend to be.
They should do this bad boy again taking into account how technology means a iq 100 individual could be an ok auditor nowadays and so on.
Likewise many teachers and managers wouldnt necessarily need to be aplitting the atom as they are more hired for social skills these days.
What would be at the end of the curve? I like the idea of “undefined”. As people at that level like steve hsu, scott locklin and ron unz will be a lot of different things , often simultabeously.
Jews are world class social scientists. I have no idea where that blogger has been the last one hundred years. Theyve dominated economics, psychology and political science. And made strong contributions to philosophy and law.
Asians are probably – even less than blacks which is saying something – able to analyse or theorise on social systems. They have no clue. In the same way many people say most of africa is technically retarded, you may be shocked to know that many east asians would be considered autistic or further along the spectrum than all other races.
Isn’t aspergers just a scientist’s way of saying “nerdy”?
JS is obsessed with the Jews. He always finds a way to come back to them.
JS and Santo are strongly Anti-Jew and Anti-Asian/Pro-White to compensate for the fact that they are of the Hispanic Ethnicity, often not classified as White in the U.S. of A.
Jason y migrated to the pumpkin 🎃 pershin. Oh my!!
Zommmmmm….😆
Because some of the pro-HBD crowd thinks Jews are such a great people, when they’re not.
The East Asian HBD followers are mostly hypocrites. They view blacks as beneath them, and yet they are reluctant to admit their flaws and shortcomings, in respect to the apex of Western Civilization. They are often delusional, giving all kinds of excuses and minor historical achievements, to justify their belonging with the pantheon of greatness, afforded to Whites.
PP here’s a weird request for you
Estimate the IQs of Outkast; that is: Andre 3000 and big boi. In “international player’s anthem,” listening to them break down the risks and benefits of marriage while using rhyming verse, they seem so smart.
Don’t take this seriously, it’s just a flight of fancy of mine and I’m embarrassed to have posted it.
Don’t be embarrassed I want to know tupac and biggie’s IQ
Biggie was supposed to have been quite bright…
Another William Playfair Web, He had to have been. All the verses from his second album(which was a classic) were freestyled! That takes INCREDIBLE skill especially since his rhyme schemes were so original and his flow so smooth. If you were ever to play eugenics with american blacks You would definitely wan’t rappers in the mix, they are geniuses in their own right. They created the most lyrically complex music genre of all time.
simply using influence, and using the said sources, assuming that about 21% of Americans are hip hop fans, and are 60% Hispanic, 40% AA, we get an average hip hop follower IQ of about 86(0.6)+82(0.4)= 84.4 (White norms). No they ‘stand up to the man’ and are hence quite liberal for their people, so we could say that they have liberal Z-scores of +0.8, and multiplying by 0.3, we get +0.24 SDs from the racial mean of 84.4, so basically, about 88.
Biggie was the most influential among the top ten modern day rappers, who would hence be more influential than around 11.375 million, on average, so they’d, assuming an 0.40 correlation between worldly success and IQ have an average influence Z-score of 5.2 and 5.2(0.4= 2.08 SDs above 88, so 88+2.08(15)= 88+31.2=119.2, now Biggie was more influential than 10 of these people, so a Z-score of +19/15, and (1.2666)(0.4)=0.506667 SDs above 119.2, which is,
119.2+7.6=126.8 or an IQ of 127, on White Norms
https://boxden.com/showthread.php?t=718058
http://brandongaille.com/25-good-hip-hop-demographics/
http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/iqtable.aspx
Sound plausible?
forgot a closer parenthesis at one point, but it’s okay.
That feels right but since he grew up in such a shit place and was so overweight it may actually be a little lower than 127.
I don’t think he was the most influential rapper maybe one of the best but the most influential rapper(going strictly by album sales) would be eminem or tupac.
so with that 21% of Americans figure, and assuming that people like rap an average of about 15 years (individual wise) that gives us 2 Generations since 1979, meaning there have been about, (based on population midpoint, crude estimation) around 525 million rap fans, averaging about 88 in IQ on White Norms. Biggie was apparently the 6th most influential.
so 525 mil/6 gives a Z-score of…..about +5.53333, and multiplying that by 0.4, we see a Z-score of about +2.2133, and multiplying that by 15 and adding to 88, we get an IQ of 121.
Now, Biggie was quite obese, and according to wiki was 6’3” 380 Lbs at one point, a BMI of, 47, putting him an astonishing 3 SDs above the median BMI, according to a google images source, so 3(-0.22)= -0.66 SDs, however seperatley taking into account his head size and a web source (solely related to height), we can give back, 2SDs (0.4), or about 0.8 SDs, bringing it up to 121 + 0.14(15)= 123.1
As for his neigborhood growing up, it wasn’t too bad, Congresswoman Mia Love grew up there, as did the actress who played Precious (wikipedia as a source for both), the main thing would be lead poisoning, 1.88% of a Medium-Poverty neighborhood in NYC showed led levels of a certain degree, which meant an average IQ drop of 7.4 points, so biggie could lose a tad of IQ, but not really much, so it puts him still
at AN IQ OF 123 ON WHITE NORMS.
Somewhere in the 120s, I’ll just say that 🙂
genius.com/discussions/65198-Ot-do-you-stop-liking-rap-at-a-certain-age
http://rateyourmusic.com/list/WuDang/top_25_influential_rappers_of_all_time/
http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/iqtable.aspx
http://a816-dohbesp.nyc.gov/IndicatorPublic/VisualizationData.aspx?id=50,4466a0,14,Disparities,Rate,years=2000;2006;2012,dataLink=Neighborhood%20Poverty
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=U.S.+population+in+1994 (rap’s beginnings are seen, according to a lost source as 1979, with a generation occurring every 15 years, so I roughly did, two).
Wow that’s really interesting that you can figure out his IQ score like that. I’m not as knowledgeable in psychometrics as I am anthropology. How did you come to that solution? What’s a Z score? Does pumpkin have any posts about how he does his calculations? I’d really like to know how you guys calculate those figures so I could do it myself. I’d appreciate the help.
What’s a Z score? Does pumpkin have any posts about how he does his calculations?
meLoisan, a Z score is simply the number of standard deviations you are from the average on a certain trait.
For example if you are one standard deviation above the mean, you have a Z score of +1. If you are two standard deviations below the mean, you have a Z score of -2.
For those who might be unfamiliar with standard deviations, I explained the concept here:
https://pumpkinperson.com/2015/09/23/what-is-a-standard-deviation-a-definition/
Many traits are normally distributed, so a Z score of +2 means you’re at the 97.7 percentile. if you’re +3, you’re at the 99.75 percentile.
http://www.measuringu.com/pcalcz.php
Some traits, like influence, are not normally distributed so a brilliant Promethean advised me to simply take a person’s percentile on that trait, and assign it the Z score it would have if the trait were normally distributed. That is what Another William Playfair is doing when he claims Biggie is +5.53 in influence, relative to the hip-hop community. These are called normalized Z scores. I discuss them in the second half of this article, along with the concept of multiplying correlations by Z scores to estimate IQs:
https://pumpkinperson.com/2015/09/30/what-is-a-z-score-a-definition-2/
Keep in mind though that these predictions typically have enormous standard errors, and when you use multiple predictors, you have to be careful because no two IQ correlates are completely independent of one another.
This post applies the concept to estimating Putin’s IQ, using the guidance I got from a Promethean many years before I wrote it.
https://pumpkinperson.com/2015/10/03/estimating-the-iq-of-vladimir-putin/
Misdreavus harassed you about this?
You can prove the “normalized score” with Calculus, using the Gaussian *function*.
But of course just having a chart (I used Rodrigo La Jara’s) is much, much easier.
His point was that traits like influence are not normally distributed, which is true of course, which is precisely why I normalize the distribution
He’s a brilliant guy but he sometimes doesn’t think hard enough
i.e. not every population has a Gaussian distribution?
I mean for instance, if this blog’s readers have an average IQ of 129, and the average of all readers’ respective populations, is, say 95 on those norms, with an SD of 22, is it really likely that there will be just as many readers with an IQ of 151, than with an IQ of 107?
Pumpkin, Thank you for the links I’ll check them out. By normal distribution do you mean a bell curve? So if a white guy has an IQ of 115 he has a +1 Z score? Sorry I’m pretty ignorant about this stuff.
“Keep in mind though that these predictions typically have enormous standard errors, and when you use multiple predictors, you have to be careful because no two IQ correlates are completely independent of one another.”
What would the margin of error be? How wrong could an IQ of 123 be using these methods?
Another william playfair web, “Congresswoman Mia Love grew up there, as did the actress who played Precious”
I wonder if Bed stuy has a high concentration of genetic potential or something.
not every population has a Gaussian distribution?
I mean for instance, if this blog’s readers have an average IQ of 129, and the average of all readers’ respective populations, is, say 95 on those norms, with an SD of 22, is it really likely that there will be just as many readers with an IQ of 151, than with an IQ of 107?
That’s an interesting question. I should check if the distribution of my readers is Gaussian. Would make for a good post.
But in the general population IQ is normally distributed for the most part, but variables like influence definitely are not.
Pumpkin, Thank you for the links I’ll check them out. By normal distribution do you mean a bell curve? So if a white guy has an IQ of 115 he has a +1 Z score?
Correct. Because IQ is often defined so that the white mean is a 100 with an SD of 15, so yes, by definition, a white with an IQ of 115 would have a Z of +1 (relative to whites)
What would the margin of error be? How wrong could an IQ of 123 be using these methods?
It depends what variable you use, but using influence to predict IQ, and assuming a 0.4 correlation, you could say with 95% confidence that your prediction is correct within +/-28 points. That might sound extremely high, and it is, given that guessing based on no information at all gives you +/-30 points, however if someone is high enough on influence, even given the 28 point margin of error, you can be 95% certain someone is smart.
Thank you, I’m going to try this method on celebrities and other public figures.
Pumpkin, How do you normalize a Z score? For example when you were talking about bill gates’ income:
“So Bill Gates financial Z score = (100,000000000 – 145,837)/447,814 = 223,306.67
Given that Z scores of 6 or higher are only supposed to occur one in a billion times, a Z score of 2,23306.67 is kind of meaningless. A brilliant Promethean told me that when calculating the financial Z scores of billionaires, I should instead use normalized Z scores. In other words, the financial Z score they would have if money were normally distributed. So assuming there are 200 million American adults, the normal curve predicts the richest American adult (Bill Gates) should have a financial Z score of 5.73, so that would be his normalized Z score.”
How did you get the final Z score of 5.73 from 223,306.67?
“the highest value in a group of 27 million should be 5.4 standard deviations above the mean.”
How do you know this? Another willam playfair web had done something similar when calculating biggie’s IQ:
“so 525 mil/6 gives a Z-score of…..about +5.53333, and multiplying that by 0.4, we see a Z-score of about +2.2133, and multiplying that by 15 and adding to 88, we get an IQ of 121.”
Just confused on the details of the math behind this. Why is he multiplying by 15? Where does the 5.53333 Z score come from?
You just need a chart showing the rarities/percentiles associated with normalized Z scores. A standard IQ chart works well enough because IQs are just Z scores multiplied by 15 and then added to 100:
http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/iqtable.aspx
But a rough guide is:
Z +6 = top one in a billion
Z +5 = top one in 3.5 million
Z +4 = top one in 32,000
Z +3 = top one in 741
Z +2 = top one in 44
Z +1 = top one in 6
Z 0 = top one in 2
So going by what you had said if Bill gates has a Z score of 5.73 I should then multiply it by .4 gives a Z score of about 2.3 which equals an IQ of 135? Did I do that right?
Yes you did it right, assuming the IQ-income correlation is 0.4 (I now believe it’s closer to 0.5) and also assuming a linear relationship throughout the full range (which is a bit of an oversimplification).
In reality Gates’ IQ is perhaps 170, which shows how big the band of error can be around such estimates.
Also according to that chart every 1 in 102 people has an IQ of 135 is that really possible? That just seems like a lot of people.
Never mind that’s like 68 million people, which is quite small.
“In reality Gates’ IQ is perhaps 170, which shows how big the band of error can be around such estimates.”
How do you know his IQ is 170?
So just to make sure I’m doing this right to stop myself from getting extreme Z score results because of abnormal distributions I just have to find the population number that I’m comparing them to? For example when you said:
“So assuming there are 200 million American adults, the normal curve predicts the richest American adult (Bill Gates) should have a financial Z score of 5.73”
I found that 5.73 *15 is about an IQ of 186 which is almost 1 in every 200 million people. So does that mean if there were 450 million american adults it would be closer to 188, going by the chart you showed me?
Now in relation to what Willam playfair said “No they ‘stand up to the man’ and are hence quite liberal for their people, so we could say that they have liberal Z-scores of +0.8, and multiplying by 0.3”
How do you find a Z score for liberalism? What is the correlation of .3 of? Sorry if that sounds stupid I’m just trying to figure out where the numbers are coming from.
“so with that 21% of Americans figure, and assuming that people like rap an average of about 15 years (individual wise) that gives us 2 Generations since 1979, meaning there have been about, (based on population midpoint, crude estimation) around 525 million rap fans,”
21% of Americans is around 67 million and if there has been 2 generations isn’t that only 134 million? where is the 525 coming from what am I missing?
“119.2, now Biggie was more influential than 10 of these people, so a Z-score of +19/15, and (1.2666)(0.4)=0.506667 SDs above 119.2, which is,
119.2+7.6=126.8”
I’m assuming he didn’t mean to put that + before the 19. How do you know which mean to use? I assume you subtract 19 from 119, divide by 15 and then multiply by the correlation. but why wouldn’t you subtract from 88 instead since that’s the average rapper mean? Why’d he use the white mean?
White Norms, is what I was using.
It just means, when the median/average (same in this case) American White has an IQ of 100, the hip-hop fan would have an IQ of 88, the median of which is more influential than apparently 1 in 2.
The + really wasn’t necessary.
Shoot, he was supposed to be the most influential in about 110,460,000.
but, ironically, that far up on the bell curve, it won’t make too much of a differences.
William playfair, Can you show me how you figured out how many rap fans there were? If you were going to figure the IQ of biggie wouldn’t you rather use the total number of rappers instead of total number of fans? Or is it because of the influence correlation that we have to use fans? instead of numbers? And if this is the case couldn’t we use album sales to figure that out?
I just noticed you used two different methods to figure his IQ, one using number of hip hop listeners and the other a list of ten modern day rappers. Which one is better to use?
Also how did you get the .8 z score in liberalism?
I’m curious as to what the next post is going to be? I can’t even speculate because it’s always something different
😐
Is Mugabe gone?
“peepee” the evil Black Lesbian banned him.
lolololol
JS and Santo are beginning to talk just like him, so I don’t see why it matters.
You banned him pumpkin?
I would like to know, as well.
just like ”Jason Y”…
a clone…
and not,
it’s not a compliment
learn your history, Santo;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Brazil
I’m a little less racially progressive than Jason, but I do agree with a lot of what he says.
Commenter The Philosopher wrote- “Heres another pro tip from a non socially clueless non feminist person:
Women hate doing stem because 90% of the guys in those subjects are sexually unappealing.
I would put my money on 4 of those female authors having slept with more business majors than math ones. Maybe even one of the male ones too.
Also, what women say they want has a 0% correlation to who gets to break in her ass on saturday night.
Verstanden?”
And Im saying why are intelligent but sexually unappealing men mostly in STEM? Also I would think there is a 100% correlation between what women say they want and who gets to break her ass on Saturday Night right?
My answer for the 1st question would be because they are hi IQ with low T. Heres a study to backup my claim http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/04/intercourse-and-intelligence.php
and for my second question the reason I would think there is a 100% correlation because all heterosexual human beings want the sexual partner that will promote the maximum copies of his or her genes into the next generation. For example, what heterosexual males are attracted to are females that can give birth to the most amount of healthy babies possible as many times as possible (young women that would be capable of having more than 1 child at a time, twins, triplets etc.) Think Pornstars and Strippers as accurate real life examples
Although what heterosexual women are attracted to is very different,
Because the amount of genes a man can produce into the next generation is entirely dependent on the amount of females he is capable of impregnating. This is essentially the number of women a man is having sex with at any given time. *Note* A man does not actually have to have sex with many different women in order to be attractive, he only has to be *CAPABLE*. Therefore heterosexual women should be maximally attracted to men that show cues that they could have sex with a large number of females, if they wanted too. (It is the same thing with females, just because a beautiful full figured woman is capable of having 6-8 children doesn’t mean she actually is going to, it just means she is capable, and therefore attractive.)
There are 3 top mating strategies a man can use to impregnate as many females as possible: Polygamy, Monogamy, and Casual Sex. I will list them in order from the worst strategy to propagate a mans genes to the best. (There is a surprising twist at the end, to you hi IQ people, its not what you would think 😉
3. Monogamy- This is essentially getting 1 woman pregnant multiple times throughout her reproductive career. This is the staple strategy of most of the developed world, simply because the population of human males is so hi, country wide Polygamy would cause there to be too many mate less males and therefore would cause protests,wars,political strife, terrorism etc.
2. Casual sex- This is essentially having brief flings with as many females as possible. Now a lot of people might be thinking wait I understand how this will promote more of a males genes than monogamy, but isn’t having sex with hundreds of women better than having 5-6 wives? And the answer is…….*drumroll*……. NO! Now let me show you the math to back it up.
Now this article https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201101/beautiful-people-have-more-daughters by Satoshi Kanazawa(a good evolutionary psychologist but an absolutely HORRIBLE mathematician) states that there is only a 3% chance of getting a fertile woman pregnant per copulation, I’ll take his word for this although he then goes onto state that it would then take 33 one night stands to equal 1 woman pregnant. (WHICH IS COMPLETELY FALSE, he once again gets his math wrong) Let me explain! Assuming there really is a 3% chance of pregnancy per sexual intercourse, it would take a lot more than 33 sessions to equal 1 child. This is because you have to REMEMBER women are only fertile 1 WEEK out of the entire month! Meaning, if a man meats a woman at a bar theres a 75% chance that she is already infertile to begin with. So if I go out and have sex one time with 33 different women my probability of fathering a child is 33×75%=25 33-25=8x.03=24%
Basically If I have sex with 33 different women about 25 of them will be infertile and out of the 8 that are fertile I only have a 3% chance of getting each one pregnant, meaning my total probability comes out to 24% (NOT 100% like kanazawa was incorrectly stating.)
So thru casual sex only, I would have to have sex with 33×5= 165 different females just to produce 1 child. *Note this is also how many times youd have to have sex with your wife to produce one child as well.
Now the reason I put Casual sex above monogamy but below polygamy is because its going to take years! decades even! For a male to have over 200 female casual sex partners and mathematically you would need about 165×2=330 of them just to get 2 kids. So if you start early (20 years old to 40 years old) and have sex with 2 new females every month you could produce at least the same amount of offspring you could with monogamy.
1. Now the best strategy hands down is Polygamy. Its obviously better than monogamy because a man could just have sex with his other wife while the 1st one is pregnant and not waste any time. And its also better than casual sex because its a lot easier and more realistic to have sex hundreds of times with multiple wives than it is to have sex with hundreds of women only a few times.
Now remember I said there was going to be a twist to this at the end. 😉 In the real world we all live in. The best strategy (Polygamy) Is illegal and not available, but evolution hasn’t caught up to that! Women are Maximally attracted to Healthy adult men(hi sperm quality and healthy genes) (think ages 20-30) that are capable of having an infinite number of wives. This obviously isn’t possible (see the movie Fifty Shades of Grey) nonetheless these types of fantasy men are going to turn women on the most. Think pro athletes and teen heart-throb singers as accurate real life examples
NOW WHAT AM I GETTING AT? hmmm back to the original question
“I would think there is a 100% correlation between what women say they want and who gets to break her ass on Saturday Night right?”
Because Polygamy is illegal although women are still attracted to it. Women cannot get the type of man their genes want the most so they *settle* for the next best thing. Essentially Men that have great genes for *casual sex.*
So finally in the real world today men and women only have 2 options.
Monogamy(Serial Monogamy is slightly better but not as much as polygamy or casual sex)
or
Casual Sex
Also here’s a list of the most fertile women and men who have ever lived
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_with_the_most_children
A commentator on LoftB (Lion’s blog) posted a link about low SMV men, with deep pockets marrying young nymphs, and it’s usually White women, being the ultimate prize to them.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/students-seeking-sugar-daddies-tuition-rent-39465311
What would the outcome be, in terms of their children?
Another reason why I dislike these Asiatics, they bring their zero sum, repressive qualities from their home cultures, that are very incompatible with Western values of egalitarianism.
At least Jews try to be fair, East Asians make no qualms about their petty superficial materialism.
I don’t think this essay explained why women say one thing and fuck another thing at all.
As I said, women will say they want Richard Gere and sleep with Jamar the drug dealer the next week.
How do I know?
There are things you only learn by going out at night.
”At least Jews try to be fair, East Asians make no qualms about their petty superficial materialism.”
JS,
i doubt that east asians in its western diaspora have very higher rates of corruption, than jews in its eternal diaspora, a nation without land, the land (hell) are others.
People of Eastern cultures do not believe in fairness, only a winner takes all mentality.
Jews have an oriental mentality. However…
Jews put on a false dichotomy of universal equality. Liberalism is a good example.
East Asians also do not believe in equality. Their countries and their immigrants in Western lands do not hide this fact. They are strictly petty materialists in the tangible form, while Jews also believe that knowledge is materialism.
This is where Jews win and Asians lose.
I think the differences in ”materialism-leaning” between whites and yellows are little. What seems made more difference is that within whites we have more-higher-proportion of unmaterialistic people than yellowmen, but on avg, this differences seems litle, again…
Among euro-jews we have greater proportion of materialistic people if compared with euro-euros and east asians.
Where is the Asian Prada? Where is the Asian Gucci? Where are Asian Lebrons’?
**You can’t just make stuff up**
“materialism”?!?!?
I call bullshit.
Higher-IQ peoples (no matter what ‘excuses’) you throw around (they are still FACTUALLY higher IQ), seem to be less materialistic.
The CORRECT term, JS, is “mandarins”;http://reappropriate.co/2016/05/ann-coulter-calls-asian-americans-mandarins-and-insists-its-the-correct-term/
East Asians are always complaining about Ivy League discrimination, job discrimination, Hollywood discrimination, dating discrimination etc — what they do really want in America, if they are not materialistic?
To be in America, is to take part in its materialistic culture. Everything funnels into it. East Asians have high incomes, — they want to be like the Jews – but still not there.