With their towering average IQ of 110 (white norms) and their incredible overrepresentation among billionaires and media, I had always assumed American Jews were the smartest ethnic group on Earth. But I recently discovered that the Singapore Chinese have them beat, with a breathtaking average IQ of 114.
This may help explain why Singapore has been called the World’s greatest city with spectacular architecture.
Despite the incredible financial and media achievements of American Jews, it makes sense that the Singapore Chinese would be even smarter, because as accomplished as Jews are, at the end of the day, they’re still Caucasoids, and this puts a genetic ceiling on how smart they can be. Despite milenia of selection for higher intelligence in the Ashkenazi community, they eventually just hit a genetic wall, much like thoroughbread horse breading reached a genetic wall in the 1970s, where no horse could exceed Secretariat’s speed (as commenter Mugabe noted).
There’s only so fast a horse can be, and there’s only so smart a Caucasoid can be (on average) before genetic diseases and side-effects loom large.
To get beyond these limits, you need a reshuffling of the genetic deck. A massive mutation like change, transforming a horse into a cheetah, transforming a Caucasoid into a Mongoloid.
According to scholar J.P. Rushton, the Mongoloids branched off the Caucasoids tens of thousands of years ago in a new and improved form.
“One theoretical possibility,” said Rushton, “is that evolution is progressive, and some populations are more advanced than others.”
Things get better over time. Mongoloids are humanity’s final draft. The newest, latest model, in a long line of revisions. The ultimate triumph of trial and error. To paraphrase Martin Luther King, the arch of evolution is long, but bends towards perfection.
Overall the Mongoloid ethnic groups range from IQ 86 (Native Americans) to IQ 114 (Singapore Chinese) suggesting a global mean IQ of around 100.
Meanwhile the Caucasoid ethnic groups range from IQ 68 (gypsies) to IQ 110 (American Jews), suggesting a global mean IQ of around 89.
The first and oldest human race are the Negroids, and their IQs reflect their archaic origin. Their ethnic groups range from about IQ 51 (Bushmen and pygmies) to about IQ 93 (Black British), suggesting a global mean of around IQ 72.
The enormous IQ range, even within macro-racial groups, suggests both genetic and environmental causes.
something can’t both be accidental and have telos pp. you’ve identified as an atheist and said that everything is accidental. But now the random haphazard process called evolution is working towards some goal.
You can’t have you cake and eat it too pp. it’s one or the other.
But now the random haphazard process called evolution is working towards some goal.
Ummmmm just because it’s random doesn’t mean that there is no selection for alleles that give let an organism increase its fitness.
The ‘goal’ that evolution is working towards (if something that doesn’t have thought is ‘working towards something) is a better organism. Selecting out deleterious alleles (individuals with those alleles) and selecting those with good alleles that increase fitness (individuals with those alleles that would correspond with an increase in fitness).
Evolution has no goal but it does select for what works, and billions of years of trial and error should result in great progress.
What works where?
For whom?
Progressing towards what?
@PP
“Evolution has no goal but it does select for what works, and billions of years of trial and error should result in great progress.”
The goal is a better, more efficient organism for that environment.
@orsomethingwhatever
“What works where?”
Whatever has an organism survive in the environment it’s in. Deleterious alleles will be selected out while alleles that increase fitness and survival will increase in number.
“For whom?”
The ‘most fit’. The one with ‘the most selfish genes’.
“Progressing towards what?”
A more efficient organism.
russell peters
Aziz Ansari
Jay Chandrasekhar
etc.
where are the mongoloid comedians?
“where are the mongoloid comedians?”
They have a lower verbal IQ.
Good lord, some of the funniest people in the World are Mongoloid. Margaret Chow
Generally mongoloids have better things to do than tell jokes like the more primitive races, but when push comes to shove, they can beat them at their own game.
new world just is becoming what it was in the begining, a land of prostitutes and criminals…
even i have ambivalent feelings about prostitutes, some of them look very smart and interesting, others are just bad luck girls, well, new world was firstly populated by this kind of people… period.
and the vulgar humor is a good culturometer.
And how genetically distinct are the Singaporean Chinese? Are they their own race?
Why would they be their own race? This is explained by the most intelligent ones leaving the country try, as is the case with most intelligent immigrants to new nations.
Exactly. I just crunched the numbers and… Singaporean Chinese are…
.2% of the total East Asian pop. Yet pp is using this tiny sub population to bolster Rushton’s negroid<caucasoid<mongoloid paradigm.
Singapore is also 76 percent Chinese.
I don’t believe that a few I.Q points are that significant and environmental factors can definitely affect I.Q. Also, as you note, labeling people different “races” because of the pigment in their skin or their religion doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. Also I.Q is complicated. Maybe Asians have higher visual/spacial intelligence and Jewish people may have higher verbal intelligence. I believe in multiple intelligence. There is no one definitive way to measure intelligence.
Race=/= skin pigmentation
Even the theory of multiple intelligences correlates to a g factor.
“One theoretical possibility,” said Rushton, “is that evolution is progressive, and some populations are more advanced than others.”
One theoretical possibility is that Ruston was a fag.
but it’s not theoretical.
it’s true!
😉
Extreme homoaversive ”man” is more likely to be a closet-fag, 😉
“is that evolution is progressive, and some populations are more advanced than others.”
What is the problem to accept the credibility of this simple sentence*
Some east-african groups are more advanced in the speed running capacity = some populations are more advanced than others…
About Singapore.
Singapore is a ‘self-made country’ ‘**
It does not seem so. Singapore is like the US, it was lucky to not have been transformed into an exploitation (Iberian) colony. However it is a fact that has been a very poor port during a long time.
Took advantage of its excellent geographical position and with the help of average intelligence of its people has managed to sustain a rich society, of course, also have a small population helps a lot.
But Singapore does not seem so fantastic as well. Its architecture is not spectacular, no more than Dubai (modern architecture are always the same and when they try to do something more interesting end up making monsters like Guggenheim).
It is culturally frigid.
It’s like an equatorial Shanghai, a large and rich Chinese city, where the semi-slaves are put to work full-time to enrich their kind elites.
And in both the factor $$$ helps to explain much of its success.
Interesting that Dubai is a country that is known for hbds to have low avg intelligence. But I have the impression that there are brutal differences between the urban centers of these countries and its countryside. And I think that Dubai must have a very high average intelligence, at least compared to their region (what is the % of western foreigners there*)
The usual interpretation hbd is
” At the end … the intelligence of Singaporeans prevailed ”
Not so, not only that.
Another common and recent partial-error of hbds is to say: ” just worry with the average IQ of their country ‘
It is also not just this because the character or wisdom of the elite is also decisive.
For example, Brazil has one of the highest tax burdens in the world at the same level as the Nordic countries, however, most of the taxes are dredged by the corruption of our miserable political class.
How rich Brazil would be without all this corruption *
But perhaps one can say that, in a population with a homogeneous distribution of behavior between the most and the least cognitively clever, psycho-cognitive profile of the average citizen can reverberate in their elites, especially when we are talking about democratic regimes.
However I have the slight impression that elites are always sociopathic, regardless of the country, power attracts ambitious, simple like tha’.
Correct, most East Asians making boring elites.
Jews “dominate” and overpower the Chinese, simply, because Jews are dynamic and global.
The Chinese are parochial, and have always been, and will forever be that way. And yes, they are rather unimaginative and less talented than the Japanese, who have much higher rates of psychoticism, which leads to more creativity.
js
I remember a documentary of a Jewish-American conductor who went to Communist China of the ’70s he was with a small American delegation in order to teach classical music to Chinese students. So as soon as he arrived, he was met with a great technical quality of two Chinese students. But we know that is not enough just decorate with some perfectly the notes of a melody to be a great musician. However two Chinese students just showed it, they decorated perfectly the notes of some songs and played their violins properly. But when dealing with music also deal with emotion. The Jewish-American conductor had to teach that is not just music, it is also passion, emotion, you need to take the music.
Supposedly we could blame the Maoist culture for it. But Communist Russia, to my knowledge, has also produced great composers and their musicians, possibly, know recognize certain ‘technical” truisms about music. It may be just an extreme biased/precipitated impression on my part.
Of course, it is a matter of learning technique, but for music students, at least the two Chinese students of this documentary (think were chosen for being the best of the school in Beijing) was to be understood that a good interpretation of the music can not survive without an emotional interpretation, without emotional involvement, risky with their own interpretation or trying to emulate perfectly the original emotional intention of the composer..
This passion, this involvement in a certain activity, seems to differentiate the European creative class, or as I like to say, there is a tiny fraction of creative geniuses among Europeans that make all the difference, and without them, the Europeans have not arrived so far.
Nah he wasn’t. But that doesn’t say anything to his statment.
In general your stuff is great PP but you do seem to suffer from yellow fever (in its intellectualized format anyway). You need to get that sorted man.
I mean, first off, you can’t just take an ethnic group from a particular city and proclaim them to be the brightest on earth on account of their average IQ being higher than that of Ashkenazi Jews. With that approach, in fact, I am sure that Ashkenazi Jews any of a dozen rich US metropolises like NY or SF would be ahead of the Singaporean Chinese. Heck, the subset of Whites in certain small university towns would be considerably brighter. Probably even some very geographically specific Brahmin castes in India.
Second, and of even greater import, Asian socio-economic and technological achievements seem to lag their average IQs by around 5 points relative to Whites. The better American cities like SF are at least as rich as Singapore and on average their denizens work far fewer hours and support more NAMS so their productivity is way ahead. Even Singapore’s NRx fans admit that its a cultural desert. This does not sound like evolutionary perfection to me.
all very true. teh Singaporean Chinese are not even a race. they are a VERY SMALL demographic within the chinese population (about three and a half million out of nearly one and a half BILLION.) this article is prima facie absurd, tendentious, and an abject attempt to resurrect the already humiliated Rushton.
AUTISM IS SO GOOD!
You tell funny jokes. Rushton is not ‘humiliated’.
I mean, first off, you can’t just take an ethnic group from a particular city and proclaim them to be the brightest on earth on account of their average IQ being higher than that of Ashkenazi Jews. With that approach, in fact, I am sure that Ashkenazi Jews any of a dozen rich US metropolises like NY or SF would be ahead of the Singaporean Chinese. Heck, the subset of Whites in certain small university towns would be considerably brighter. Probably even some very geographically specific Brahmin castes in India.
But Ashkenazim in New York city are perhaps not analogous to East Asians in Singapore, because NYC is just a city, while Singapore is a country (though also a city since it’s small)
So my point is that there’s apparently no country on Earth where ANY sub-race of Caucasoid (not even Ashkenazem) average above 110 (white norms), but there is a country where the brightest sub-race of Mongoloids (the East Asians) average 114.
However this could be an accident of selective migration and not all that meaningful. Worldwide, Ashkenazim probably average 106.5 (they’re dragged down by Israeli Ashkenazim), while East Asians average 105.
You are probably correct. And the IQ and income levels among NYC’s Ashkenazim are more varied than the more uniform Singaporean Chinese. Most of the Singaporean Chinese are elitists, where as NYC’s Jews are a mixed bag, with individuals in the 1% range in wealth.
This again relates to the disparity or diversity among Caucasoids, from the dumb, poor to the wealthy and intelligent geniuses. East Asians lack this range of diverse individuals.
Plus, white European men are by far the largest group among geniuses. IQ is important, but so is character and temperament.
http://geniusfamine.blogspot.com
You stole my name. =^)
The only issue with the Ashkenazim is their lower visual intelligence, which is needed for civilization and reasoning faculties. They cannot build fantastic cities. Never did and never will.
They seem almost irrational (or unreasonable) about it, or do not understand, even this Jewish guy on Lion, who is always advocating for manual trades, yet somehow he misses his point that Israel needs manual laborers more than its parasitic professionals.
https://lionoftheblogosphere.wordpress.com/2016/08/07/utopia-the-first-sentence/comment-page-1/#comment-114736
Typical Jewish reasoning, hence why they are always irrational, crazy and out of it with destructive implications. Not all of them are like this, but many enough to say its a problem.
Were their ancient cities built by them?
Yes, but all of them were very primitive. So were those of the Arabs. But one can see that Arabs have created a civilization. Jews have not. There is no such thing as a Jewish Civilization. The same applies to blacks in Africa.
Also, many Jews, no matter how Eurocentric they are, they always have to assert a form of Jewish superiority, where Jews are just better than Whites. They’ll say Ancient Greeks admired beauty, philosophy and art, but we Jews are morally superior, typical of many Jews who try to reason.
I believe you were wrong about logic being associated with visio-spatial ability. It is actually associated with the verbal component of intelligence, at which Ashkenazi Jews purportedly excel. Perhaps that’s why there’re many award-winning Jewish mathematicians, as opposed to say engineers, as the logic of math may not require extraordinary visuospatial ability, except for certain fields perhaps. Or maybe they have High verbal/logic ability and visio-spatial, such as Einstein.
“The first and oldest human race are the Negroids,”
Haha, no.
If this were the pre-genomics era, you might be forgiven for using the oldschool categories.
But in the post-genomics era, particularly in a discussion of genetics, this is silly crap.
“Negroids” are paraphyletic.
The act of talking about macro-racial categories as if they matter across time and space is a distinctly American gesture…that is, absurd, stupid and parochial.
“and their IQs reflect their archaic origin.”
Really?
Is that why Australian aborigines – far more “recent” a group – have lower means?
Why exactly makes blacks the most “ancient” anyway?
The word primitive is more appropriate.
Ancient Greece was and still much more evolved than anything coming from sub-saharan africa.
“Is that why Australian aborigines – far more “recent” a group – have lower means?”
Indeed. I informed Pumpkinperson that Australoids, who originally came from the Horn of Africa, are best classified as Caucasians. They have IQs of 67, below her minimum given of 68.
Really? Got a source? Never heard that before.
Australian aboriginals average IQ 62 per Lynn. Some anthropologists classified them as archaic caucasoids, but others classified them as Negroid. I think their skulls would be considered Negroid and some Australoid types look really sub-Saharan (i.e. Andaman islanders, pure blooded Tasmanians etc)
What does the Horn of Africa have to do with anything? They only acquired Caucasoid blood (via invasions from West Asia) tens of thousands of years after the ancestors of Australoids left Africa .
Unless you think the Caucasoid phenotype was also indigenous to East Africa, but even if that’s partly true, proto-Australoids left before the Caucasoid form began to evolve.
” I informed Pumpkinperson that Australoids, who originally came from the Horn of Africa, are best classified as Caucasians.”
Maybe if you’re talking about skulls. Which you shouldn’t be.
Genetically they aren’t, that much is for sure.
@PP
Interestingly enough, Abos have higher visio-spatial IQs than Europeans, according to Lynn.
“A remarkable study by Kearins (1981) found that Aboriginal children had much stronger spatial memory than Europeans. In this study 132 Aboriginal children aged 7-16 and the same number of white Australian children were given various tests of spatial memory. The general format of the tests was that 20 objects were laid out and the child was asked to look at them for 30 seconds and try to remember their position. The objects were then removed and the child was asked to re-assemble them in the same positions. In all the tasks Aboriginal children performed better than whites. Their overall advantage is represented by a Spatial Memory IQ of 119. Kearins argued that the most probable explanation for this high spatial memory ability
is that it evolved in the Aborigines because the deserts of central Australia have few landmarks and the nomadic Aboriginal peoples needed to note and remember the location of such landmarks as exist to construct mental spatial maps of their environments to find their way home after going out on hunting expeditions. In support of this argument, she tested a sample of Aborigines living in a town whose families had been living in the town for several generations. This group performed just as well on spatial memory as those from the desert She argued that this indicated that the environment is not responsible for the high spatial memory
ability of the Aborigines and supported her view that it has an evolved genetic basis.”
Though, the results have been challenged. I’m inclined to believe it’s correct. since this same phenomenon is noticed in Inuits and Eskimoes. You’re going to need a higher visio-spatial IQ to survive in an environment with flat land.
Spatially memory is not the same a visual spatial ability
RaceRealist, couldn’t the superior spatial memory of “Abos” be explained by the likelihood that they truly observe things as they are in the present moment, rather than chase thoughts on an “ego-driven” minds endless mission of labeling and identifying?
I believe it was robert lindsay who said that most races are relatively new in evolutionary terms. https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2016/06/18/every-race-is-a-new-race/
“The “White race” is very new. Sorry Alt Reichers.”
The term ‘Alt-Reichers’ is retarded. Not everyone who is Alt-Right is a National Socialist.
Just because the white race is ‘very new’ doesn’t mean that it’s not worth preserving or that ‘race doesn’t exist’. See, Lindsay is everything that the average socialist is, except he accepts the reality of race.
Speaking of, modern-day Europeans appeared 4500 years ago. The Yamnaya are the mythical Aryans (Indo-Europeans) that Nordicists talk about, but they looked nothing like the Nords of today!
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/07/16/nordicist-fantasies-the-myth-of-the-blonde-haired-blue-eyed-aryans-and-the-origins-of-the-indo-europeans/
“ALL Alt-Righters and White nationalists are Nazis. ALL of them. Well most all of them. And if not Nazis, almost all of them are fascists or fascist-sympathizers. Go to any Alt Reich page, and it will be so obvious that this is a fascist if not an out and out Nazi movement.”
Lindsay is a trip!
Alt-Right doesn’t automatically mean ‘Nazi’. Wow, people’s perception is truly distorted.
I ‘attacked socialism’ by saying that socialism is responsible for more deaths than the National Socialists were, which is true.
He wants a lefty echo chamber with no other views, and just like a socialist would, he bans any dissent. Typical.
But anyway, just because the races are ‘new’ doesn’t invalidate the existence of race.
Race Realist-
I tried to get Robert to unban you, I said “he’s reasonable about everything but Jews. He’s very pro-Asian, so he’s probably not some evil White racist”. But he just ignored that comment.
but the problem, is that the Alt-Right, is simply not viable in many scenarios.
They basically just want to go back in time with race relations (obviously, that didn’t work- at least here in the states). The Alt-Left proposes new solutions.
race realist- you also realize, although I could just be perpetrating a strawman, here, that large portions of them don’t consider South Italians White?
They don’t consider Spanish White, not because of Nordicism, but rather, they confuse Spaniards and Mestizos.
Gaylor and the AmRen crowd.
Mann
Dump
Yianna-pullingyourleg
Some of the fans of Stefan “Moly-Jew”‘s
etc.
Alt-Right figures;
can’t get a perfect score on (and probably not pass) a test designed for the Mentally impaired; “retard test”
https://pumpkinperson.com/2015/12/19/educable-mild-mental-retardation/
but “stormfags” can!
“why do Mexicans speak Spanish?”
That’s enough right there to alienate me……
I’ve shown AmRenners are disproportiantly uneducated with my link to Alexa on the last post,
BUT
it’s more than that, they don’t have, as a Black HBDer on Robert Lindsay said of what got his father up from poverty;
“no desire to learn anything outside their immediate surrondings”
i.e. Just accept what’s thrown at them, spew their garbage opinions…like SNL’s “should I chime in”.
That’s why I’m formulating plans to GTFO of the U.S. if things get ugly.
I initially though this guy, Fernando Cortes, was a White Nationalist who just happened to Mexican;
I.E. “I’m stuck here in third world squalor, and can’t get out, buy you ‘Muricans go get it”
BUT, nope.
“I’m a dumb sp!c and I praise the White man”
but…
the problem is, he’s White;
probably a descendant of Hernan Cortes who contrary to Cuck lies, did not come from Europe, but just Materialized in thin air from Mexico!
Jared Taylor hence could not explain why Mexicans speak Spanish.
He’s is hence Mentally impaired.
Anybody who can not tell that there are some White Hispanics, or at least that Spaniards exist as a White European or Middle Eastern people, need to be sentenced to death and hung publicly.
I’m not joking. Start with Gaylor, Mann, and this retarded enabler.
can you spell;
“f-a-l-s-e o-p-p-o-s-i-t-i-o-n”?
I don’t understand why people over-criticize alt right as if they were the only one who commit mistakes about their pretend-to-be-wise strategy, everyone try and most fail.
Iliberals are so much stupid whatever their higher ”scholastic achievements” or ”iq”, many to most them are pretty imbecile, they are dangerous because they can’t understand the basics of the morality, what it really is, they are on avg very ambiguous species. Just look to the absurd pathetic ”reaction” of the iliberal crowd about the so-called terrorism in weshtern world!!!! the extremely higher mass immigration… they are so idiotic, and i’m not in any perspective ”conservative, if it mean, to be ”religious” (morally hypocrit and stupid), ”traditional”, like kill foxes in the greenish lowlands or believe that is normal the man to be a soccer-obsessive and a troglodyte and a normal woman to be a combination of discret bitch, dishonest about your appearence and childish about your understanding of the world.
normal is about norm and not about perfecctionist set of behaviors, aka, wisdom spectrum.
Lolbert Lindsay can’t criticize anything, he is idiotic, absolutely believer about your own pathetic megalomania of iq-tard fetishist. He is just a typical eternal ”iliberal” student who are extremely, i will repeat in big words, EXTREMELY morally and politically selective, absolutely far to be wise, the opposite.
A lot of [[cognitively]] smart people are not wise, a lot if not most of them.
Santoculto-
If someone can’t identify why Mexicans speak Spanish, anywhere in the Western Hemisphere, they are shamefully ignorant, and should be deemed to have a very low intellect, whatever that may be.
They are a Eugenic threat to humanity.
They need to be sentenced to death and executed, I don’t care if they have some fancy accent. I’m not joking.
The Alt-Reich and the Alt-Reich alone, have led me to a deep seated hatred of my own people.
They shamelessly disenfranchise others of their race and then seek violence upon them.
It has to stop.
Whites are the most hated in the world, and I honestly can see why.
Other races do it too, but they seem to be less sanctimonious about it.
This nonsense, HAS TO STOP!
William gay-fair, you’re a eugenic threat to humanity.
I am sorry that you’re a Hispanic who fears deportation in the Trump administration, but stop repeating the same rants over and over again.
All countries have the right to protect their borders. What part of that do you not understand?
The fact remains that if you speak Spanish in America, there’s a very good chance you have Southern Amerindian ancestry.
Add to that the fact that the Spanish are among the least white looking whites, and the entire Spanish American community has been stigmatized as non-white at best, and illegal and worst.
Shit happens. You’re just pissed that it’s happened to you.
MM: Basically read
‘I proudly can’t pass the retard test’.
Spanish came to Latin America and bred with Indians, generally, but some did not.
Anyone who does not understand it (you) is a Eugenic threat.
Where did the Conquistadors come from- if not Europe? They materialized? Were they actually the White skinned Gods of the Aztecs.
Get it?
Fucktard?
yeah, well,
if the non-Whites win, I’m “in”
if the Whites win I have a chance to be in, at least.
Better odds, than you…………………………………………………
The typical Mexican is 60% Amerindian, 35% white, and 5% black. Not that many are more than 75% European, and even if they were, borders are not just about protecting the gene pool, they’re also about preserving the culture. The United States and Mexico are two separate countries. Get it through your thick FUCKING skull.
Now having said that, I have no problem with Spaniards. I prefer them to most whites, but I do have a problem with open borders.
Yes, Spaniards are the least White looking of Euros.
Their pageants features women who are deemed as “Latinas” by ignorant Anglo Proles, and not as White women. This is what happens you have Jews, Moors, Gypsies and Berbers who mixed with native Iberians throughout Spain’s history.
These women could easily be Miss Mexico, Puerto Rico, Venezuela, Peru…
@William
“but the problem, is that the Alt-Right, is simply not viable in many scenarios.
They basically just want to go back in time with race relations (obviously, that didn’t work- at least here in the states). The Alt-Left proposes new solutions.”
I agree with you. Alt-Right, WN is not viable. People have pipe dreams and LARP all day about it, when the world is going in a complete opposite direction of their fantasy world.
I do consider myself Alt-Right, but I’m no extremist in my views. I just want a country that’s majority white, it’s not possible to have a ‘racially pure ethnostate” today.
What is Alt-Left? Never heard of it before.
“you also realize, although I could just be perpetrating a strawman, here, that large portions of them don’t consider South Italians White?”
Because they’re fucking idiots. S. Italians look slightly different due to a warmer climate, but are basically genetically the same. If they’re saying shit about S. Italians, then they should say shit about the Swedes, since this N/S gradient is seen in Sweden as well as Germany, with the differences between West and East Germany being greater than North and South Germany.
“They don’t consider Spanish White, not because of Nordicism, but rather, they confuse Spaniards and Mestizos.”
Because a lot of them are morons. People think that ‘Hispanic’ is a race, as you said the other day with those Castizos and white Mexicans who use the Mestizos/Indios for their own gain.
Some of my family is from Guatemala (Spanish descent) and live in the cities. I also have some German blood as well. I’m mainly Italian/Greek with some Western Asian DNA, a smidge of Indio and some noise that says African (5 percent or less is most likely noise and my family is pretty ethnocentric so I doubt it’s actual descent). But I look phenotypically Italian (Master race =^) )
There is a huge difference between Mestizos/Indios in comparison to the Castizos and those descended from the Spanish who never mixed with any of the Indians. There is a caste system in Latin America too, with the whites ruling in most countries (Argentina and Uruguay are great examples).
“That’s why I’m formulating plans to GTFO of the U.S. if things get ugly.”
Where would you go? I have a friend from Uruguay, she’s Italian and she tells me that there is a huge divide between blacks and whites there. I’ve thought about going there if shit hits the fan.
“Anybody who can not tell that there are some White Hispanics, or at least that Spaniards exist as a White European or Middle Eastern people, need to be sentenced to death and hung publicly.
I’m not joking. Start with Gaylor, Mann, and this retarded enabler.”
Do they really say that?
@Marsha
“I am sorry that you’re a Hispanic who fears deportation in the Trump administration, but stop repeating the same rants over and over again.”
Do people really believe this? Trump has, first of all, reneged on his plan:
http://www.amren.com/news/2016/06/trump-shifts-immigration-plan-no-mass-deportations/
Then he declined clarification:
http://www.amren.com/news/2016/06/donald-trump-declines-to-clarify-contradictory-immigration-positions/
He won’t do anything either.I wish we could have strict immigration, maybe an IQ cut off point. Only fill jobs that we need and keep a white majority.
“Now having said that, I have no problem with Spaniards. I prefer them to most whites, but I do have a problem with open borders.”
I agree.
@William
“Were they actually the White skinned Gods of the Aztecs.”
Lol man. Have you ever heard of Billy Roeper?
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/billy-roper
I trampled him on a message board last year. He came pushing this Solutrean hypothesis bullshit. Then he said the Aztecs had white gods and the Maya did too (which I’m very well read on Maya history). I showed his dumb ass that the Aztecs made that story of the white gods AFTER the Aztec Empire fell. They needed to think of a way why their once great civilization fell, and that’s what they came up with.
Morons like to say that all of the discoveries of the MesoAmericans were false and bullshit and ‘leftist revisionism’. But that shows their ignorance. Morons believe any and all myths. But if you believe SOME of the myths, why not all? Are we made from corn (Maya creation myth)? Were there gods on Mt. Olympus? These idiots don’t even think about the logic behind their statements before they say it.
race realist
“Just because the white race is ‘very new’ doesn’t mean that it’s not worth preserving or that ‘race doesn’t exist’.But anyway, just because the races are ‘new’ doesn’t invalidate the existence of race.”
You have completely missed the point. Australian aborigines are the oldest race. I think they also have most primitive craniums..
Marsha
“I am sorry that you’re a Hispanic who fears deportation in the Trump administration, but stop repeating the same rants over and over again.”
What’s wrong with fearing the trump administration? The last thing we need is an incompetent sensationalist running our already fucked country.
meLo-
Marsha failed a test designed for the mentally impaired.
She pathologically lies about her identity (i.e. a Prostitute who gives away her location, who can get herself killed).
Probably just getting kicks or something, lol.
I thought so but she just seems a little stupid to be a troll.
If this were the pre-genomics era, you might be forgiven for using the oldschool categories.
But in the post-genomics era, particularly in a discussion of genetics, this is silly crap.
“Negroids” are paraphyletic.
I preserve the ancient Linnean taxonomy of grouping life forms based on observable traits, as opposed to the modern cladistics method which groups life forms based on time since divergence from a common ancestor, which has led to such travesties as humans being considered apes and birds being considered dinosaurs.
Look at this woman from the Andaman islands:
Modern science would say she’s racially more different from sub-Saharans than Norwegians are, since her kind diverged from Africa earlier, but unlike the Norwegians, she genetically preserves the ancient phenotype of Africa, thus I classify her as Negroid.
The fact that peoples who have been separated for 70,000 years can share the Negroid phenotype, suggests that phenotype predated the Out of Africa migrations, and thus the Negroid phenotype is extremely ancient.
Is that why Australian aborigines – far more “recent” a group – have lower means?
The Australoids were among the first to diverge from the mainstream of humanity, and their remnants can be found in the Andaman islands genetically preserving the ancient phenotype of black Africa. Many Australoids, like Truganini, the last full blooded Tasmanian, look just like black Africans. I classify them as Negroid and so would many African Americans.
We may be confusing evolution level with isolation level, not exactly the same thing, do not look. For example, we can have a andamians population that remained isolated thousands of years, while other populations on the continent have gone through numerous selection processes, bottleneck, founder effect, epidemics, changes in selection patterns, etc …
So this isolation + transformations that occurred in the ‘continent’ ‘can you spend the idea that andamians are the most genetically divergent to have genetic composition that differs from the others.
However, on the contrary, they did not select a completely new genes, but actually kept the old genes, a sort of comparative illusion of genuine divergence.
I may be completely wrong, usual,;)
Evolution is an accumulation of evolutionary divergences in relation to the founder population. It is common that evolution walk to speciation.
However unintentional preservation of ancient genetic landscape as seems to have happened with these very isolated groups, so they appear as’ ‘the most divergent of Africans’, but actually may be just because they have gone through great selection processes, ie, while the closest people to each other has been through many more processes.
The ancestors of the Aborigines of Australia left Africa around 70 kya.
The paternal ancestor of the Caucasian and Mongoloid people diverged 10 kya.
“Y chromosomal DNA polymorphisms were used to investigate Pleistocene male migrations to the American continent. In a worldwide sample of 306 men, we obtained 32 haplotypes constructed with the variation found in 30 distinct polymorphic sites. The major Y haplotype present in most Native Americans was traced back to recent ancestors common with Siberians, namely, the Kets and Altaians from the Yenissey River Basin and Altai Mountains, respectively. Going further back, the next common ancestor gave rise also to Caucasoid Y chromosomes, probably from the central Eurasian region. (This is the Yamnaya.) This study, therefore, suggests a predominantly central Siberian origin for Native American paternal lineages for those who could have migrated to the Americas during the Upper Pleistocene.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9973301
Some Abos can trace 11 percent of their Ancestry to South India from around 4 kya.
http://www.nature.com/news/genomes-link-aboriginal-australians-to-indians-1.12219
I doubt Abos and Africans would even cluster with each other on a PCA graph.
The point with the Siberian study, PP, is to show that the branch off from Caucasoids and Mongoloids is recent but they’re different enough to cluster differently.
“I preserve the ancient Linnean taxonomy of grouping life forms based on observable traits,”
Why? It makes sense if you’re discussing social concepts of race…in the American context.
Are you?
“as opposed to the modern cladistics method which groups life forms based on time since divergence from a common ancestor, which has led to such travesties as humans being considered apes and birds being considered dinosaurs.”
There is no travesty in either of those. Taking issue with humans being classified as apes is a creationist or anthropocentrist gesture. There’s no problem with it.
For those of us who keep up with paleontology, the line between “bird” (a broad, vague category) and “dinosaur” (another broad, vague category) is basically non-existent. It’s a travesty people pretend there is.
Pumpkin person,
“I preserve the ancient Linnean taxonomy of grouping life forms based on observable traits, as opposed to the modern cladistics method which groups life forms based on time since divergence from a common ancestor, which has led to such travesties as humans being considered apes and birds being considered dinosaurs.”
So you only prefer methods that confirm your preconceived notions? The idea that dinosaurs are more related to birds may seem weird but it is perfectly logical in this context. Both methods are logical in their own contexts so why exactly do you prefer the taxonomic one? I’m not saying I necessarily disagree I’m just wondering. I honestly believe genetic evidence trumps archaeological evidence.
“The fact that peoples who have been separated for 70,000 years can share the Negroid phenotype, suggests that phenotype predated the Out of Africa migrations, and thus the Negroid phenotype is extremely ancient.The Australoids were among the first to diverge from the mainstream of humanity, and their remnants can be found in the Andaman islands genetically preserving the ancient phenotype of black Africa. Many Australoids, like Truganini, the last full blooded Tasmanian, look just like black Africans. I classify them as Negroid and so would many African Americans.”
Has it ever occurred to you that maybe they have similar phenotypes because they live in incredibly similar climates?
Damnit pumpkin, hurry and moderate my shit.
So you only prefer methods that confirm your preconceived notions? The idea that dinosaurs are more related to birds may seem weird but it is perfectly logical in this context. Both methods are logical in their own contexts so why exactly do you prefer the taxonomic one? I’m not saying I necessarily disagree I’m just wondering. I honestly believe genetic evidence trumps archaeological evidence.
Has it ever occurred to you that maybe they have similar phenotypes because they live in incredibly similar climates?
pp-
I suppose the argument about Native Americans being “Archaic Mongoloids” is similar to this.
My question, is why would, once broken off, evolution of peoples initially living in the far North regions of the globe, suddenly massive change direction from intense IQ selection?
I find the notion that the mutations/changes “spread like wildfire through more connected populations”, to be far fetched.
Natural selection can occur if the people without y trait DIE.
That is actually the more common model of “Natural Selection”
Australoids have huge brow ridges and wrinkly skin, they dont look black imo:
There is no travesty in either of those. Taking issue with humans being classified as apes is a creationist or anthropocentrist gesture. There’s no problem with it.
No, it makes no sense for most human populations to be classified as apes. Humans are bipedal. Apes are not. Apes are prognathous. Humans are not. Humans have language. Apes do not. Apes have fur Humans do not. Humans have civilization, the internet and travel to the moon. Apes do not.
The idiocy of cladistics is it lumps two completely different types of primates together for no other reason than the fact that we share a recent common ancestor.
But what defines humans and apes,
or what should define us,
is not how little time has passed since we shared a common ancestor
But how much evolutionary change has occurred in that time.
So you only prefer methods that confirm your preconceived notions? The idea that dinosaurs are more related to birds may seem weird but it is perfectly logical in this context. Both methods are logical in their own contexts so why exactly do you prefer the taxonomic one? I’m not saying I necessarily disagree I’m just wondering. I honestly believe genetic evidence trumps archaeological evidence.
They’re both taxonomic. I’m saying I prefer taxonomy by observable traits (the Linnean method) as opposed to taxonomy based on cladistics (time since divergence). That’s because the latter is simply a genetic clock that tells you how recently two life forms have diverged.
But two life forms can diverge millions of years ago, but if they both genetically preserve the phenotype of their common ancestor, then it’s absurd to deny their taxonomic similarity.
By contrast, two life forms could have diverged only 10,000 years ago, but have mutated so much in that time that they look and act completely different.
Has it ever occurred to you that maybe they have similar phenotypes because they live in incredibly similar climates?
But that’s the point. Two populations can be separated for a very long time, but if they remain in similar environments, both will genetically preserve the phenotype of their common ancestor, and thus should be grouped together.
But that is my point! Both are perfectly viable methods of grouping organisms however you just have a preference of one because it supports your preconceived notions.
“That’s because the latter is simply a genetic clock that tells you how recently two life forms have diverged.But two life forms can diverge millions of years ago, but if they both genetically preserve the phenotype of their common ancestor, then it’s absurd to deny their taxonomic similarity.”
Perfect example, that is not a logical reason to not use genetic similarity. You’re right it is absurd but it is also absurd to deny genetic similarity! You prefer phenotype over genotype which is quite strange.
I prefer grouping organisms that have the same observable traits, not that have the same recent ancestor.
It’s not a question of phenotype vs genotype, because when scientists classify organisms, they seldom look at the whole genome. They specifically look at the part of the genome that doesn’t matter because that’s the part that mutates at a random rate, thus giving divergence time estimates.
I’m saying classify organisms by what matters, not by what doesn’t matter.
How is Pumpkin so incredibly dumb? I’m actually curious now, Pumpkin, what’s your IQ? Literally every one of your comments in this thread is unmitigated pseudoscientific garbage.
Do you think bats should be grouped with birds? What about dolphins with fish? Should hyraxes, voles, and rats all be grouped together because they’re small furry mammals?
This is literally pre-scientific folk taxonomy you’re advocating for. It never ceases to amuse me how “scientific” racists spout the most unwashed unscientfic garbage.
“They specifically look at the part of the genome that doesn’t matter because that’s the part that mutates at a random rate, thus giving divergence time estimates.”
This just isn’t true. They look at the entire genome, if possible, or large sections of the genome, which may or may not include changes that “matter” (assuming we buy into your definition of what matters).
But the real irony is that race “realists” like yourself so often do the same thing. Whenever you present genetic analysis of various races, you never select for the genes that “matter.” These kinds of charts are all over the HBD blogosphere, for example:
Do you think bats should be grouped with birds? What about dolphins with fish?
Of course not. The difference is, we know bats are not birds and that dolphins are not fish just from looking at them. We don’t need genetics to tell us they’re different.
However we do NOT know Andaman Islanders are not sub-Saharans just from looking at them. We rely on genetics to tell us they’re so very different, even though are eyes tell us they’re the same.
So obviously the genetics is not measuring anything relevant and that’s because scientists measuring genetic distance try to only look at neutral genes.
This just isn’t true. They look at the entire genome, if possible, or large sections of the genome, which may or may not include changes that “matter” (assuming we buy into your definition of what matters).
Wrong! As Jensen noted on page 427 of The g Factor: “Neutral genes are preferred in this work because they provide a more stable and accurate evolutionary ‘clock’ than do genes whose phenotypic characters have been subjected to the kinds of diverse external conditions that are the basis for natural selection. Although neutral genes provide a more accurate estimate of populations’ divergence times, it should be noted that, by definition, they do not fully reflect the magnitude of genetic differences between populations that are mainly attributable to natural selection.”
But the real irony is that race “realists” like yourself so often do the same thing. Whenever you present genetic analysis of various races, you never select for the genes that “matter.”
Well I’m extremely unique in defining race by the genes that matter. Most people define race by lineage.
Ashkenazi Jews are very related to Christian Greeks and Armenians genetically, but behaviorally, they seem to get a long well with the Chinese.
So it’s not necessary genetic similarity. I would think Ashkenazim would find more compatibility with the Chinese than their close cousins the Greeks.
Interestingly, in New York City, Jews have been living among Chinese without any problems.
So this is a good example refuting PP’s theory that people who share similar phenotypes will find commonality.
The animosity between Jews and Whites, and Jews and Arabs refute his theory.
Arabs are more inbred, increasing social strife.
Armenians are probably closest to the Jews in terms of genetics, and also with negative behavior.
Armenians (and also Greeks) have been stereotype for being shrewd and cunning. They are like the “Christian” Jews.
So why is there a less animosity towards these groups, despite sharing a similar behavior?
Culturally, Christians have been more humble and modest, and coming across as more affable.
Very well-written and defended reply PP. Though:
“Most people define race by lineage.”
Is the same thing as going by genes that matter. Risch et al prove this. Self-reports are great.
With a sample of 3636 people, self-reported race/ethnicity was only wrong 5 times, .14 percent of the time. People were right 99.86 percent of the time.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/
Going by continental ancestry and self-reported ethnicity is fine.
Very well-written and defended reply PP.
Thank you!
Though:
“Most people define race by lineage.”
Is the same thing as going by genes that matter. Risch et al prove this. Self-reports are great.
In most cases, there’s a strong correlation between lineage and genes that matter, but there are exceptions. For example, if you didn’t know their lineage, you would classify Andaman Islanders with sub-Saharan Africans, but because they have an extremely different lineage, having left Africa about 70,000 years ago, and thus accumulated great differences from sub-Saharans on NEUTRAL DNA, they are considered a completely different race.
However because they remained in a tropical environment, they have clearly genetically preserved the African phenotype, and probably would be considered African if measured only by the genes that matter.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-36814258
Just a sick person who could kill their own sister and by pretty dumb reasons.
One thing that Pumpkin and most people failed to mention is that Greek Americans, who are a tiny White ethnic group, share a lot of related genes with the Askenazim. The only difference is the culture and religion. And guess what? Greek Americans are the 2nd wealthiest ethnic group in America, and are one of the most educated.
Armenians and well to do Anatolian Turks aren’t far behind. So there must be a genetic component, and Ashkenazim, being the most sociopathic, would thrive the most in America.
”One thing that Pumpkin and most people failed to mention is that Greek Americans, who are a tiny White ethnic group, share a lot of related genes with the Askenazim. The only difference is the culture and religion.”
I don’t think only culture and religion that differentiates ashkenazis and greek americans.
share a lot of related genes is not the same than ”be the same”.
http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/science/.premium-1.664967
Greeks, Armenians and Turks are closely related to Askhenazim, but clearly, they are the most sociopathic and devious. Traits needed to succeed in America.
Haplotype J2.
“Meanwhile the Caucasoid ethnic groups range from IQ 68 (gypsies) to IQ 110 (American Jews), suggesting a global mean IQ of around 89.”
Pumpkinperson-
when put into the macro-racial theory, Australoids/ Australian aborigines are also Caucasian, since they did come from the Horn of Africa.
I believe on that scale they currently have an IQ of like….67 ?
pumpkinperson-
you forgot Australoids for Caucasians- who currently have IQs of 67 on those norms (according to you), lower than “Gypsies” and came from the Horn of Africa originally/archaically.
There are more black restaurateurs in Montreal from East Africa than West Africa. I’m sure this has do with IQ levels. Furthermore, quite a number of West African Restaurant owners in Montreal happened to be women. There are some who believe black women have higher IQs than their male counterparts.
All in all, Canada gets a better group of black immigrants. They work towards self sufficiency as it seems, where as in the United States, you find many Afro-Immigrants in gov’t work.
Black women have higher IQs than the men due to sexual selection. Since women did the gathering of food that selected them for higher intelligence than the men, who were selected on the basis for attractiveness. The reverse holds true for Eurasians, men hunted and needed to be more intelligent and the women got selected on the basis of beauty. Women need to be protected and a higher IQ mate will be a better protector and provider.
Is it true that the quite a number of Japanese have Caucasoid ancestry?
It is no surprise that Japanese are more savage like, creative and talented than their Chinese and Korean neighbors.
Some Japanese, despite being Mongoloid, look Mediterranean.
@JS
“Is it true that the quite a number of Japanese have Caucasoid ancestry?”
The Japs are descended from the Ainu, who I’ve read are a Caucasoid population:
Quite a number of Japanese look like Central Asians, with some semblance to Caucasoids who live in that part of the world, and afar into the Mediterranean. Central Asian Caucasian types look like Southern Euros.
Although some groups conquered by Europeans had a lot of potential (I.E. the Incans, East Indians, etc.),
I wonder what Chinua Achebe, author of “When Things Fall Apart” (written in 1956-1957, lamenting a change in the general nature of the people after Colonialism) would say about Nigeria today. He moved to the U.S. to teach in 1991.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinua_Achebe
Race realist,
“Black women have higher IQs than the men due to sexual selection. Since women did the gathering of food that selected them for higher intelligence than the men, who were selected on the basis for attractiveness.”
Source? not only for the IQ tests showing that black women are smarter but for the evolutionary explanation behind it.
“The Japs are descended from the Ainu, who I’ve read are a Caucasoid population:”
They are taxanomically proto eurasians but I believe genetic studies showed they were more closely related to Mongoloids.
JS,
“It is no surprise that Japanese are more savage like, creative and talented than their Chinese and Korean neighbors.”
They just had a different kind of nationalism, they Idealized western civilization, china was simply too big of a country.
False, Chinese literature sucks, if you ever read any of it, and compared it to Japanese literature. The Chinese blows as a people: they are the least creative of the East Asians.
@Melo
“Source? not only for the IQ tests showing that black women are smarter but for the evolutionary explanation behind it.”
http://erectuswalksamongst.us/Chap5.html
This is a great book. It’s littered with citations.
Thank you, I’ll check it out. I am assuming that it does have references to IQ tests showing that black women are more intelligent?
@Melo
I’m not sure I’m not done reading it myself. I don’t think it does though.
Chanda Chisala shows how black girls are smarter than black boys and so does Sowell.
oh I’ll see what chanda has written about it.
Melo,
Let me know what you think and don’t take his (horrible) conclusions seriously.
Clarence Thomas also talks about the statistics in his book, when he was clerking for a Civil Rights Lawyer in Georgia in the summer of 1969.
He doesn’t mention anything about them as head of the EEOC, though………
@ racerealist
100% pure BULLSHIT.
before the neolithic there was never a food shortage. NEVER.
scarcity is an invention of civilization.
take that neolithic cock out yo’ mouf.
along with that jewish cock.
put a cave man’s cock in yo’ mouf.
what might have made a man more attractive in the darwinian sense would have been health…so far as health was inherited…specifically a resistance to infectious diseases and parasites…
but the reduction of beauty to darwinian fitness is…
PROLE!
man is more than darwin.
beauty is more that science.
…than science…
the extent to which women can differ from men for genetic reasons is quite limited…
it’s XX vs XY.
so what can the difference stem from?
it seems much more likely that the Y chromosome would bear the whole burden of distinguishing the sexes, but it can’t…
it’s a fucking midget chromosome.
no guy.
you’re just trying to naturalize what is NOT natural.
men are from mars and women are from…
MARS…
they just don’t know it.
it’s stockholm syndrome at its highest level.
…
think about it…
if you had a vagina and a clit…
wouldn’t you want to rub it against a big pole?
…
but that’s it.
sex is the extent of genuine differences between the sexes.
or rather genuine behavioral differences.
obviously women’s professional sports is retarded.
@jorge videla
“what might have made a man more attractive in the darwinian sense would have been health…so far as health was inherited…specifically a resistance to infectious diseases and parasites…”
That’s one thing. Health is a good indicator of intelligence (https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2004currentdirections.pdf) so with intelligence, you’re picking health as well, along with the other positive variables that come with it.
“man is more than darwin.
beauty is more that science.”
True, but evolution is the main driver behind it. Beauty can be objectively measured, facial symmetry and the like.
“it seems much more likely that the Y chromosome would bear the whole burden of distinguishing the sexes, but it can’t…
it’s a fucking midget chromosome.”
Differences in testosterone contribute to sex differences, which affect the brain differently. Small IQ gap, 3.63 points. It’s more than chromosomes, but that’s a big part.
“you’re just trying to naturalize what is NOT natural.”
How so.
Behavioral differences come down to hormonal differences which then alter brain structure and how the brain works.
RR: I agree that the physical differences between Northern and Southern Italians aren’t always cut and dry. There are Northern Italians who look like Neapolitans and Sicilians, and vice versa.
Spain is the most oddball of the Southern Euro countries. The facial phenotypes among Spaniards are so varied. Some look like Anglo Proles, and others, very Semitic looking, and anyone in between. And there is no set rules, a Northern Spaniard can look “more Southern” than a Southern Spaniard, and vice versa.
”That’s one thing. Health is a good indicator of intelligence ”
At priore, a good indicator of intelligence IS intelligence ITSELF…
what is the problem to be semantically/conceptually correct***
It’s hurt somebody*
Race realist,
do you have any links to chanda’s stuff on black females?
JS,
“False, Chinese literature sucks, if you ever read any of it, and compared it to Japanese literature. The Chinese blows as a people: they are the least creative of the East Asians.”
I doubt it would be a good idea to equate creativity with literature.
”I doubt it would be a good idea to equate creativity with literature.”
develop it
literature is part of human activities and can be ”equated” with creativity as well architecture, science, philosophy (that is primarily a literature too)
PP,
Siberians and Caucasians share an ancestor on the Y chromosome around 10 k years ago. This is why they’re so similar.
The Ancestry North Eurasian component is from this migration.
A comparison with NYC Jews would be more apt, not Jews as a whole.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/07/11/missouri-police-say-4-teens-used-pokemon-go-to-rob-people.html
‘Teens’. St Louis. BMW. Blacks confirmed.
One great thing about East Asia, but this would not be a forte for Pumpkin, the lack of diversity that one finds in the West, that is responsible for much of the problems there.
I’m not sure why you decided that the smartest group has to be Mongoloid. As akarlin mentioned, it doesn’t even make sense to break Singapore Chinese off into their own group unless they been breeding only amongst themselves for a really long time, so as to create an independent ethnic group. And then you look at certain Caucasoid groups like the Parsi in India and Indian Americans, and Neo-Puritan groups like Episcopalians, and the American Jews, and not only are their IQs probably nearly as high but their actual creative output (in terms of science and culture) may be similar or even much higher than that of Singapore Chinese (on a per capita basis).
But I know you like simple, elegant theories, which is why you desperately want the Negroid-Caucasoid-Mongoloid hierarchy to be absolutely correct.
Detractors of East Asian Superiority, have been saying it all along. They aren’t known for their creativity and cultural output that one finds with Caucasians. I just call it a lack of dynamism. East Asians are the least dynamic of the higher functioning groups. If they are, I think many Caucasoids would have been emigrating into their continent, and that doesn’t appear to be the case. You can find a significant number of Chinese migrants in Middle Eastern countries, but not vice versa.
And the only reason why the Chinese are in sub-sahara Africa – they are following the footsteps of the Europeans and the Muslims before them.
And just look at the philosophical and religious systems that came out of the Middle East and Europe. They all branched out and took on several divergent forms. Islam’s main narrative is not even about jihad and the killing of non-Muslim infidels. The core tensions and conflicts in Islam are sectarian and ethnic.
What is Confucianism? I don’t know and neither do many people. It has no intellectuals and followers who critique it.
@JS
The Chinese are killing it in Africa. If only we Americans would have done what they’re doing first. They’re going to make Africa a ”’better”’ place than it is now.
Basically, the Chinese are responsible for the increase in HDI in Africa in the past few years.
Mongoloids have the most intellectual potential out of all the macro races but are stifled by their homogenity. Innovation is driven by necessity until nothing is necessary. Then consumerism becomes the main driver, they make our shit they do not engage in our shit. They need to relax.
I really don’t see (other than perhaps Asians are more new to the Western world and hence collectively “spurge” so to speak on material things) that Asians are so Materialistic. Before the 20th century it appears they were less materialistic.
They lack of “philosophy” is attributal to verbal IQs.
Correct, the Japanese however, are a notch above.
They were the 1st to Westernize successfully, and intellectuals are found among them, but not with the rest of East Asia, which is a sign of proleness.
And notice my spiel about certain immigrant groups who crowd the United States. The prolier the group, the more ubiquitous in their presence. The Japanese similar to Spaniards, are a small demographic in the USofA.
I was just making the point that not a single sub-race of Caucasoid (not even Ashkenazim) averages above 110 IQ in any country on Earth (not even America); and yet the East Asian sub-race of Mongoloid averages 114 in Singapore.
But you and Akarlin are right. The Singapore East Asians are not really an ethnic group in any meaningful sense, so my post could probably have been better worded.
The problem is that we are strongly self-conditioned to look for unilateral or with only a single perspective explanations, is a way of thinking ” natural selection ‘, in which only a theory supposedly need to survive, and in this case we are talking about something that is more subjective, nuanced.
The advanced mongoloids by what appears to have several biological markers that indicate to a certain perspective, further evolution. They are more emotionally calm (or cold ** say that the human being of the future will be less emotional, which would be a shame, is not the emotion that is bad, is always stupidity, no matter what means are used to perpetuating), they have greater biological (and cognitive resilience) or better immune systems.
From a human perspective, the Mongoloids are rather more evolved, but very little if compared to Caucasians.
Based on a purely human perspective, ” the ” whites overcame advanced Mongoloid because they exceeded them in creative achievements. Anyway there are many criteria. In a criterion ” how physically divergent of early hominids, each race is ” Europeans are the most advanced. clearly arrived, despite this need, the European and East Asian are those who accumulate the greatest amount of changes, biological and cultural, that become ” more human ‘than hominids.
it might be necessary to analyze the genetic evolution of other living beings to know whether ‘lower diversity tends to result in greater evolution towards greater amount of accumulation of biological / cultural changes compared to the founder population”;
East asians collectively speaking excel in basic math learning/understanding and social rules. However, Africans have other aspects, such psychological that appear more developed. Anyway, there are many criteria.
Culturally and intellectually, mongoloids are less evolved. Whites were to 1st circle the world. Mongoloids still have not form communities in Antarctica. They are less inclined to experience, and less inclined to progress themselves.
Intellectually and culturally mongoloids are more evolved. Their higher intelligence coupled with their lack of diversity makes the more hive mindish and more pragmatic.
The Europeans were just as diverse as the East Asians, prior to globalization. So the lack of diversity isn’t the reason why East Asians are uniform and pragmatic.
The Romans were more pragmatic than the Chinese. They managed to develop an effective water system with pipes, not seen in Ancient Asia and many parts of contemporary China.
“The Europeans were just as diverse as the East Asians, prior to globalization.”
East asians have never been as diverse as Europeans, Whites have much more genetic heterogeneity
“The Romans were more pragmatic than the Chinese. They managed to develop an effective water system with pipes,”
False, Romans adopted customs on a whim they were like an ancient america. They were far less nationalistic.
Chinese are incredibly nationalistic, Japanese are too but not quite as much which made them more likely to view Europeans with respect and awe instead of hatred and contempt.
In essence, the Mongoloid is a useless specimen by itself, if you are measuring the progress of this advanced race.
”Culturally and intellectually, mongoloids are less evolved. Whites were to 1st circle the world. Mongoloids still have not form communities in Antarctica. They are less inclined to experience, and less inclined to progress themselves.”
It is not correct to triumph over the defects of others.
The idea of progress, at individual level, can be highly relative.
”In essence, the Mongoloid is a useless specimen by itself, if you are measuring the progress of this advanced race.”
What nonsense, is not ashamed to say it **
If we stop to think so much of human beings are useless, including you and me. What the 40 million Spaniards are useful **
Even the beloved cognitive elites would also be useless by its predatory character.
Europeans have invaded the world’s most stupid way possible.
Yes, perhaps even miss a certain willingness to take risks on the part of East Asian. On the other hand, this willingness to risk is excessive among Europeans, to the point of collective suicide, too much freedom makes room for opportunistic parasites. It’s like a gay man venturing into unprotected promiscuous sex, he’s asking to become a ” multicultural ” body 😉
As a prudent, wise and superior European is invading foreign lands …
The Mongoloid is at the other extreme of the Negroid race. When you have extremes, this is no good. Bogth blacks and East Asians have not produced anything of significance on their own.
Being in the middle does not seem good too, as is happening with the Europeans. The point is that it is never good to be stagnant.
As I am much more inclined to the arts, literature and philosophy, I have sought, even extremely lazy way, discover great achievements of these categories between the East Asiasn and compared to Europeans, I have seen a few.
It is a fact for example that the current Western music sucks, especially in its epicenter, but are still showing a wide range of excellent artists. I have the impression that the same is not true in Asia and more than in the West, the pop has prevailed there more than here.
It would be interesting to analyze the musical taste between east Asians and whites individuals. I think there would be a wide variety of musical tastes among whites than among East Asian individuals.
The cultural differences between European nations, as I have said before, are very significant. Realize that even in countries such as Thailand and Malaysia, genetic clines, all Asian east behavioral trends remain very similar to the countries that are more racially decanted such as Korea’s and Japan.
There is great cultural diversity in Europe probably because of the different types of temperaments among Europeans.
It also has that idea, women are much more normal than men, by this logic, the East Asian would be much more normal than whites and the same for the average black without implicit mental disorders.
Intellectually and culturally mongoloids are more evolved. Their higher intelligence coupled with their lack of diversity makes the more hive mindish and more pragmatic.
I don’t see why Asians are materialistic- other than it’s something new to them and it’s “cool” for now. But in the big scheme of things- this is just a phase for Asians, I suspect.
”I don’t see why Asians are materialistic”
They tend to be materialistic as well most part of human groups but without greedy.
”Intellectually and culturally mongoloids are more evolved. Their higher intelligence coupled with their lack of diversity makes the more hive mindish and more pragmatic.”
Based on ”anti-white narrative” always have some justification to explain why other people are ”superior” even they don’t ”proved” it in the real world.
The amazing european archicteture speak for itself…
”culturally” ”superior”
East asians seems They arrived early at the level of ” higher level – civilization ” and then stopped, entered a prolongated period of self-contemplation …
and stop to learn, to see problems, to try to make a ”better world” (cliche but useful)
it seems that they threw in the trash everything interesting that produced via Eastern philosophy.
Rushton call Mongoloids overly cautious. This is the achilles heel of the Mongoloids. And yes, East Asians are nervous, when compared to Whites and blacks. They are not big risk takers.
Exactly. Being overly cautious is not conducive for discoveries.
Whites are like Goldilocks (which is one reason why Rushton’s r/K Theory got so much slack), just right. While Asians have less test, this is why they are not as aggressive as whites, and why, in my opinion, they don’t have as many discoveries and inventions as whites since they don’t have the higher testosterone for risk-taking.
East Asian women have not capitalized on the Feminism movement of trying to achieve independence like men, namely being their own bosses and doing things that men would normally do.
And if you want to speak about feminism, female achievements and abilities…East Asian women are less likely to achieve or challenge the status quo of men in terms of independence, creativity, ability and originality. White women and ALSO black women have demonstrated this.
The female East Asian similar to its male counterpart have not done anything original and have not developed a sense of independence from its male counterpart. I do not find business owners with East Asian women ON THEIR OWN in the West.
I’ve met White women who run eateries, clothing stores by themselves, book binding shops by themselves..I found black women with a similar nature, some running their own restaurants and even a tech company. East Asian women are not in the same league in the world of feminism.
Because they are some of the most docile human beings.
Of course there is exceptions, probably, if i’m not saying shit[ism]
Lower testosterone levels is the reason. In a feminist world, even East Asian women lose.
I do not know if it’s just that.
You know that there are ‘two types’ of testosterone, circular and total. In terms of total testosterone, studies between macro-races have shown mixed results.
Perhaps the East Asian tend to have lower circular testosterone than the other macro-races.
Apparently, blacks tends to have a hormonal explosion during adolescence and over time during adulthood, your values are going down until they reach the average Eurasians.
White, as always intermediaries. And the Asians have the least hormonal explosion from adolescence until the beginning of adult life.
@Santoculto
Levels of free testosterone are what matters the most.
”Levels of free testosterone are what matters the most.”
evidence please.
I have thought so. But I knew little about testosterone (and still knowing little). What seems more interesting is how the testosterone is distributed throughout life, especially of man.
I’m not entirely dismissing the total testosterone level. But for now the results have been mixed.
check out these cunts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaifeng_Jews
Same shit happened in Rome. Is there going to be a super Jew/Chinese hybrid in a few hundred/thousand years?
Interesting how common should be the instantaneous verbal creativity, that is, to produce rhymed phrases, as with hip hop, among blacks, whites and east Asians. This is a demonstration of the kind of creativity that seems most common in sub-Saharan or Black descent.
It is also interesting to think that, it seems that the Ashkenazi Jews, in particular, are the best in complex instantaneous verbal creativity ( or verbal fluid ”intelligence”), which is generally useful in the manufacture of arguments at ” chutzpah style” in debates.
As I mentioned before, there’s a certain elegance to the Negroid-caucasoid-mongoloid hierarchy, which goes from most primitive to least, but there’s other important spectra in the human racial groups. Particularly, there’s the Occidental vs. oriental division, as outlined in “Geography of Thought” by Richard Nisbett. The Angloprolesphere is at one extreme versus East Asians, with continental Europeans, middle easterners and South Asians in between. And this relates to analytical vs. holistic thinking, and individualism vs. collectivism.
But this binary division is also elegant, 😉
I’m not fully satisfied with the idea that whites on average are more intrinsically individualistic, whereas until recently Western societies were not very different from traditional societies in other countries.
The behavior is partially plastic and especially among human populations that are more cognitively advanced, because the universal human tendency is precisely to develop into rationality, at least a priori, or in perfect condition of temperature and pressure, and it also means progressive access to free will, by now, most seem to be as self-will, if we can not pervade ourselves.
Until recently, homosexuality was considered a mental disorder and even in countries supposedly more individualistic.
It is also important to point out again the differences between individualism and individuality. Western conservatives are more individualistic especially in economic terms, which can easily be translated into ” greater freedom for the individual competition, especially among men. ” By contrast, socially liberal Westerners are the opposite, they are averse to individual economic competition, but value the individuality, that is, self-expression, to be what it is, and not to conform to the dominant culture, which almost always it is conservative.
I think those differences are universal because express universal tendencies, for example, more masculine women, and more feminine men tend to be more likely to be socially liberal, in any society. What differs is the proportion of these types, which seem more common in Western societies than in traditional societies, or because of greater cultural freedom in the West and also the women’s liberation, there was an increase of individuality that can easily result also in greater narcissism, and a smaller reduction in the competitive impetus, although it still remains high.
I do believe that the Europeans is, first, a higher proportion of people with temperament combinations and cognition which is ideal for some professions as’ enterpeneurs’ ‘, but also creative professions, and in combination with a favorable cultural environment which increases the expression of these trends, directing them for certain purposes.
remember, most people are followers.
I believe that since the Middle Ages with the emergence of a middle class between the nobility and serfdom. And this middle class was increasing their demographic proportion of European social classes producing a robust bourgeoisie. The nobles are often only interested in maintaining their social power. The serfs are only economically dependent workers, current working classes. The bourgeoisie is one that in addition to combining these two social trends, has also produced a large proportion of visionaries.
On the other hand I believe and I may be wrong that Asia has selected a different type of cognitive classes, which can be well represented by middle-class workers, conformist, cognitively intelligent, socially conservative and that usually works for the government.
There is also a large proportion of Western Euro-descendants who are like that. What does seem to differentiate is the proportion of visionaries who appears to be disproportionate among Euro-descendants.
Collectively speaking it it can be said that the East Asian are more cognitively intelligent than Western Europeans, especially. But it may also be possible to say that there are more visionary types: enterpeneurs, creative workers, creative thinkers, etc. Among the euro-descendants.
The size and quality of European creative class seems to favor the European dominance so far and may have been one of bio-products of a demographic swelling of the bourgeois class that has increased their numbers via natural selection.
Modern pos culture is constantly changing and for worse, regressive way. Since the 50s, the collective cultural change has been enormous. significant disruption of the body, with great instability may result in its rapid deterioration. And I believe that these changes are not spontaneous, for example, the explosion of the hippie movement in the 60s.
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRXlNWQ40V2pEGSenGtoksqYANYbCWfCby_WUnuco1bheGnzQZk
Elites make a tremendous effort to seem that these changes are natural, the result of natural progress of human reason;) because obviously they are behind all this.
Generally, the more stable is a more robust culture will be. Only the West has been a pioneer in this type of constant regressive cultural transformation (especially in some basic aspects of the arts) and in a short space of time while the habit is that this kind of transformation is much longer.
”Until recently, homosexuality was DES-considered a mental disorder and even in countries supposedly more individualistic.”
but doesn’t Anime Kitty know?……………………….
The Jews, elusive mass non-White immigration, etc. are what’s going to not only diminish Western civilization, BUT kill us all in our beds?
I am going to send you a friend request on facebook, AK.
this is “Another William Playfair Web”, btw.
nisbett once again shows he’s 10x more subtle than the hereditists.
and maybe he comes around to the view that the individualist ideology is a “satanic” force…patently false…yet those who believe it aren’t even aware that they believe it.
they don’t know it, but they do it.
Jorge-
How long before Prole Ameristan implodes upon itself?
I’d say 50 years. Thank God I’ll be on my way out then.
americastan has ALREADY imploded. and “we’re all living in america” has ruined the rest of the world too.
mofos!
all the idols are being shattered.
yet priest-craft is more powerful than ever.
…
what’s really happening now is:
1. automation
2. at the same time technical development has slowed to the pace of the mississippi…in mississippi…
even the oxbows are shallower.
3. globalization, TFRs 2…1/3d of french newborns are from africa.
4. a finite planet…and that it is finite is “happening”…
get with it mofos…
go long BONDS.
even more.
thanks jews.
coundn’t ha’ done without ya!
It makes sense that the people who are most negatively affected by a certain culture, tend to favor opposing views, because after all, we are all traders ourselves, selling our fish, negotiating our right to existential dignity.
So could brain size relate to metabolism in each of the races maxing out IQ potential.? I.e. Jews had genes for efficiency in the brain.
Metabolism in what way? Overall body metabolism?
A bigger brain consumes more kcal. So obviously one with a bigger brain has a faster metabolism due to their brain consuming more kcal due to its size.
I believe shiny Singapore resulted from the twice distillation of bright Chinese that immigrated from China and then from Malaysia. Chinese derived countries contained many elite Chinese refugees, similar to the Pakistanis muhajirs, that brilliantly pulled invisible strings to turn rice paddies and swamps hong Kong, taipei, Macau and Singapore into grade A cities.
The Singaporean Indian population, according to Wikipedia, overrepresented in politics, the courts, and ambassadors. The brainy Chinese and talkative Indians complement very well with their respective strengths, as seen in Singapore and silicon valley.
The cunning Jews and defacto status WASPs complement very well in their respective strengths, as seen in Hollywood, the DC corridor and Wall St-NYC.
There are some conspiracy theorists who believed that the world will come to a final showdown between the Judified AngloSphere vs the Confucious East Asia.
In the middle of all of this, we’ll see the March of Titans knocking these 2 poles down. The Greeks and the Romans will once again reign supreme.
Yeah right. Anyone with a brain can see that blacks will be the “dominant” race on the planet in the future.
America is a cesspit of blacks. This is a fact, and it will become more apparent in the next 20 years.
“Yeah right. Anyone with a brain can see that blacks will be the “dominant” race on the planet in the future”
Sadly, this.
That is definitely true, Jews and gentles need each other to thrive. The second Ashkenazis left Germany, hitler was screwed. Without gentle, Jews would descend into hasidic religious frenzy and without Jews, gentle become spergs.
It’s true though they have are the most genetically diverse(best ones for eugenical experiments) and have the most dominant genes. The chinese are smart for capitalizing but also dumb because this will lead to their eventual fall, they’re propagating blacks but at the same time underestimating them.
Jorge is right that politics is like WWE wrestling- it’s an act, the power stays in the same hands,
but what he doesn’t realized is the Trumpenreich is not controlling a change, it’s a controlled change, they now the current path we are on is not sustainable, so they begin to adjust it, just a little, why making people believe it’s a lot.
“Stormfags” used to say “DT is living, breathing proof the Jew takes StormFront seriously”.
*”Tell the truth and fear no one”*
not that it’s necessarily the Jews, of course, but you get my point.
you seriously think trump is just a puppet?
a puppet of whom?
the very fact that he is NOT a puppet is what makes him unique.
…
it’s clear that “the end of history” as heralded by that moron fukuyama is not here.
and fukuyama-ism is a perfect example of IDEOLOGY…and of the total inability of contemporary intellectuals to understand hegel.
…
what are hegel’s moments today?
1. capitalism vs communism has become capitalism wins let’s minimize the state.
2. nationalism vs whatever has become “celebrate diversity” and globalism. the whatever wins.
what’s the point?
global capitalism is NOT an aufhebung.
it’s just the negation.
the negation of the negation still awaits.
Of my “Public Enemies” List;
(Gaylor, Mann, Yianna-pullingyourleg, Moly-Jew, and Trump) Trump is by far the most honest, yes.
But the fact that these people/their brainwashed followers have flocked to Trump, does not speak well of him, perhaps they flock to Trump because they know he’s safe, and they have something to gain.
Do you honestly think any of those four are *brave*. Fuck no. They know he’s “safe” for them, that’s why they flock to him.
Don’t you think Cruzmann gave up a little easily.
the flock to him because he’s…
1. real/authentic
2. anti-PC
3. has no stings attached…thus no one is pulling his strings.
hillary:
@jorge videla
“3. has no stings attached…thus no one is pulling his strings.”
Ya right. You know who pulls his strings.
This fantasy of Trump being everything we’ve dreamed of is manufactured. People really believe the media narrative? It’s ridiculous. You’re watching a huge play unfold right in front of you.
racerealist-
the fact that you understand this makes you one of the most verbally/socially smart bloggers in the HBD sphere.
Jorge- TRUMP WAS ONE OF THE MASS-IMMIGRATION, GLOBALIZING ELITES.
HE DID NOT RUN REFORM IN 2000 BECAUSE HE THOUGHT THAT PAT BUCHANNAN WAS AN ANTI-SEMITE.
GET IT?
1. who’s the playwright?
2. why have ALL the jewish neocons repudiated trump?
3. why is no one willing to speak at the convention?
riddle me that paranoiacs.
or is that all “in the script” too?
crazy mofos.
Yeah, well, the Jewish vote went for Hillary in Hillary v. Bernie.
They LOATHE him, or rather, used to loathe him, nearly as much.
Bernie, you know, that bitter old anti-Semite who wants to help Make America White;
http://www.trbimg.com/img-56c87c2e/turbine/ct-bernie-sanders-1963-chicago-arrest-20160219
Yiannapolous, Trump’s ‘son’ (or whatever),
talks about “Jews having dispropiniate control of the media”,
BUT
1. he’s a Jew
2. He’s getting interviewed by a guy named Rubin!
come on guy………………………….
Little Narco, a “Jew tool to the nth degree” has endorsed Trump.
Non-White, loves him so Bibi, etc.
Get it?…….
guy?
I don’t even believe “Jews want to kill Whites”, as I debated with Yente on the ‘Rushton’s views’ article. But, the Neo-Con thing with foreign policy is glaringly obvious.
William,
Why thank you. What kind words.
@jorge videla
The Jews who run the country.
Part of the play. Some Jews LOVE him. He’s also ‘not neutral on Israel’ and his election will be ‘great news for the Israeli people’.
What do you mean?
@William,
They’ve said as much.
@William
“but what he doesn’t realized is the Trumpenreich is not controlling a change, it’s a controlled change, they now the current path we are on is not sustainable, so they begin to adjust it, just a little, why making people believe it’s a lot.”
People are idiots. Especially the Alt-Right/Stormfront. One person comes along saying what they want to hear and they go along with it. Never mind that they KNOW politics is a farce and that nothing ever happens in our favor. Yet they, looking for what they want to see, think that Trump is Hitler or something. It’s retarded.
““Stormfags” used to say “DT is living, breathing proof the Jew takes StormFront seriously””
People believe this.
Never mind the fact that Trump loves Jews and his kids and grandkid and son in law and daughter in law are Jews.
My new favorite piece to show Trump’s love of Jews, from his Jew son in law, nonetheless:
http://observer.com/2016/07/jared-kushner-the-donald-trump-i-know/
“The fact is that my father in law is an incredibly loving and tolerant person who has embraced my family and our Judaism since I began dating my wife. His support has been unwavering and from the heart. I have personally seen him embrace people of all racial and religious backgrounds, at his companies and in his personal life. This caricature that some want to paint as someone who has “allowed” or encouraged intolerance just doesn’t reflect the Donald Trump I know. The from-the-heart reactions of this man are instinctively pro-Jewish and pro-Israel. Just last week, at an event in New Hampshire, an audience member asked about wasting money on “Zionist Israel.” My father-in-law didn’t miss a beat in replying that “Israel is a very, important ally of the United States and we are going to protect them 100 percent.” No script, no handlers, no TelePrompter—just a strong opinion from the heart.”
@jorge videla
See above. I have more if you’d like to see.
more of what?
i wanted bernie.
and bernie IS a jew.
Jorge-
You used to say “Heil Hitler”?
You take cultural purity in countries quite seriously.
You believe Jews are changing such, harming the Proletariat, etc.
could you explain why you;
Trust BOTH Trump and Bernie so readily?
You give up your notions of Jewish control quite easily.
i do NOT hate jews per se.
what i hate is that jews as a group have obscenely disproportionate influence, AND that they silence any mention of it…unless those who mention it are themselves jews.
look what happened to rick sanchez, gary oldman, galliano, etc.
only ron unz, yiannopoulos, and 60 minutes can mention it.
i guess mearsheimer and walt have tenure. but i wonder how long before they’re removed anyway.
if you’re a jew who thinks this obscenely disproportionate power is ok and that no gentile can mention it, then…
there’s no talking to you.
you are the enemy.
”i do NOT hate jews per se.
what i hate is that jews as a group have obscenely disproportionate influence, AND that they silence any mention of it…”
I do not care if they completely dominate a society, since they weren’t PER SI, what seems, most of them are.
I do not care if the government of the European countries were dominated, 230% of Jewish representation.
Since these were not these smart retarded/ stupid vipers
i can’t understand you through the word salad brazilian guy.
1. i agree that the jews should live alone in their own homeland.
2. i agree with the initial plan of the nazis to gather all jews together in poland and then ship them off.
3. this plan was made impossible by the war. specifically, after america’s entry. the only thing the nazis could do, given their ideology and that they knew they were going to lose the war and that they couldn’t simply expel the jews (as spain did in 1492 and england did in 1290)…
what were they supposed to do?
and i say this as one whose sympathy is heightened as my dog is in his last throws.
what were they supposed to do?
Die Endlösung der Judenfrage is not mysterious or inexplicable…AT ALL!
and that elie wiesel claimed it was…
damns him.
4. i even sympathize, to some extent, with the nazis’ involuntary euthanasia program. but there really is a “slippery slope”, and the policy WAS abused. it just became murder.
but a guy like this? he should never have been born. seriously!
but then the policy might have killed folks like john nash. it probably did.
5. and i sent an email to the belgian consulate telling them that their euthanasia program for the merely “depressed” i considered to be SATANIC and therefore i would no longer buy anything made in belgium…notably belgian beer…which is the best in the world.
the following is pure EVIL…SATANIC:
SATANIC!
SATANIC!
SATANIC!
6. the nazis are incredibly sympathetic in one respect…
they LOVED
LOVED
LOVED
animals.
…
so my dog’s tumor has been untreatable for a while now. it’s pressing on his urethra so he can’t urinate…except in his sleep.
so i’ve just covered the couches with plastic.
i won’t put him down until his suffering really is too much.
he still has lots of energy, so i assume he doesn’t want to shuffle off his mortal coil quite yet.
it’s funny how the nazi regime is assumed to have been very “tight”…very organized…from top to bottom…
the truth is the exact opposite.
the third riech was totally disorganized.
totally.
I’ll repeat earnestly …
i do not care if the Jews would completely dominate the world,
IF
they were not, what they are (most of them, it seems)
Rick Sanchez certainly was a brave guy- he did in essence end his career (it could have picked up somewhere else).
Is Ron Unz Jewish?
I don’t know if you were getting at the fact that he is outside the mainstream or that he is Jewish. I do like Ron Unz generally speaking, regardless. He actually proposes real solutions- often times compassionate ones, in the face of the surrounding bullshit.
Yiannapolous is just a fratboy who has fun talking about how horrible women are (a stereotype about frat boys). It is so blatantly obvious that he is false opposition it’s not even funny.
unz’s mom was jewish and his parents met on a flight to israel.
it may be his father is a gentile, like bobby fischer’s.
idk.
Well, Bobby Fischer does bring up an interesting counterpoint…………
If I recall correctly he said the Israelis were committing a shoah of the Palestinians (after Bibi Gun Netanyahu came to power in 1996), was deemed “mentally ill” and then holed up in Iceland for a few years until he died.
I’ll have to check, though………….
or rather fischer’s birth certificate father.
fischer’s real father may have been this guy…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Nemenyi
jorge videla,
The T4 program was euthanizing children with incurable diseases. It wasn’t forced by the State, rather it was the parent’s choice. There was outcry by the public, so Hitler, with The Catholic Church put a stop to it,.
ya see here ^^^
one cannot trust what he reads about the nazis.
“one cannot trust what he reads about the nazis.”
Meaning… What? Do you not believe what I’m saying?
it’s also noteworthy how john galliano and gibson have been able to use the defense of “alcoholism”…
that is, they have excused their “anti-semitic” tirades by…
“the disease of alcoholism”.
and they’re able to use this absurd excuse, because:
1. the jews are not the supermen peepee thinks they are. they’re smart, but they aren’t that smart.
2. jewish alcoholics are rare…richard lewis is the only one i can name…so “alcoholism” really seems like a disease to them.
3. as i’ve said before…almost all “mental illness”…but addiction specifically…
is ultimately the result of…
SOCIAL problems…
not INDIVIDUAL problems.
the american ideology doesn’t admit society as a cause…the locus of pathology is always the individual…”society” simply doesn’t exist for the american ideology.
Jews are quite aware that alcoholism is no excuse for antisemitism but they play along because they don’t want Gibson’s fans to think Gibson meant what he said because then it would gain credibility
They also wish to pathologize antisemitism by blaming it on another pathology: alcoholism
@racerealist
no!
i was agreeing with you.
the winners write history.
”They also wish to pathologize antisemitism by blaming it on another pathology: alcoholism”
Why anti semitism is a pathology for you peepee*
Why do you don’t do a text talking about it*
=)
@PP
Mel Gibson did NOTHING WRONG.
If I were a Jew I’d be mad at him making The Passion as well.
Jews were more angry about his drunken rant where he claimed Jews were responsible for all the wars.
Oy vey!? You mean… Speak the TRUTH!!??!?!?!?
PP, all wars are banker wars.
My question was
”why you think anti-semitism is a pathology”
Do you can answer*
I didn’t say anti-Semitism was necessarily a pathology, but there have been many who have tried to describe it as one.
RaceRealist,
when Mel Gibson blamed Jews for the wars, I think he was talking about the pro-Israel lobby, not some banker conspiracy which I doubt Gibson believes in.
has Yente seen this;
?
WNs are not only stupid,
but they pathologically lie, and lie and lie.
And when their lies have run their course,
THEY LIE SOME MORE.
FACTS ARE THE FACTS.
countries with non-Whites as primary immigrant group;
Portugal, France, Belgium, Germany, UK
just 5 !
Countries with non-Caucasians as primary immigrant group;
Portugal, UK.
get it?
and Macedonia for “non-White immigrants”
One of the most populous and influent countries of the western europe (Uk, France, Germany)…
cry more,
i like
😉
Detail, Belgium, Netherlands have progressive non-white populations.
In all of the western european nations the non-white immigrants if they are not the first group they will be the second, third or fourth.
your try to put the Algerians as just another Caucasian people such as the peoples of Europe is depressing, you’re just playing is not*
but again, why i’m wasting my time with you**
Does this even look at the children of immigrants? What about immigrants as a % of population?
What about tourists who overstay and refugees (etc)?
What’s hilariously funny to me, William, is that the UK’s biggest immigration problem is with the Poles, not Arabs or North and Sub-Saharan Africans.The Poles in the UK are like our Mexicans in America. Taking their jobs and causing a huge strain on their economy and wages.
Yeah, exactly. But to according WNs, there really should be no issue. Right?
The obvious answer is that white nationalism is retarded.
Exactly.
I see the end result of WN (if it ever gets implemented, which has a snowball’s chance in Hell) being all of the white ethnicities mixing together, which is just as bad as race-mixing.
Of course it’s no issue, they’re white. But it’s coming at the expense of the native population, so it should be a problem.
They probably don’t even think about or address the issue.
I’d love for immigration to stop though. It’s a lose/lose situation.
I’ve heard Farage got in a lot of trouble for just casually saying “Polack” at one point.
UK is interesting in that it’s immigration OUTSIDE Europe, has people performing very well, but the Portuguese, Polish, and to a lesser extent, Italians, do badly in academia/ the workforce.
Theresa May, who was the main immigration person, is now PM. People were riled up at her over refusing to “close the tunnel” when the Sudanese were causing trouble at Calais, but what could she do?
Theresa May is the “steady hand” type, that we need in *personality*,
although she may be an insincere globalist liar,
the PERSONALITY, is right.
otherwise,
things get stupid (low IQ hordes lower the intellect of the conversation greatly) and we end up with Trump.
racerealist-
the problem is, although not all are bad, White Nationalism attracts the real dregs of society, prone to be tricked and manipulated by the powers at be.
These WN leaders live in an Ivory Tower and have not interacted with the White Proletariat for years.
It’s not real “White Nationalism” anyway.
When the founders talked of “White (men)” They also included in that ALL Europeans, Arabs, Persians, Caucasians, maybe even East Indians.
You may not agree, but a lot of the WN mantra/rhetoric is completely non-factual.
I also suspect part of the reasons the power at be leave out the Spanish (and Portuguese) is that the “Everyone has their own states, except Whites” is challenged, because of Amerinds.
If they’re all “Hispanic” then the Proletariat will never know!
That’s at least the thought process of the elites. The peasants are fooled.
“the problem is, although not all are bad, White Nationalism attracts the real dregs of society, prone to be tricked and manipulated by the powers at be.”
I see a lot of bullshit from them. The Right Stuff has good blog posts on race and IQ and the like, but the pushing of bullshit theories like the Solutrean hypothesis shows they have no idea what they’re talking about.
“When the founders talked of “White (men)” They also included in that ALL Europeans, Arabs, Persians, Caucasians, maybe even East Indians.”
Got a source?
“You may not agree, but a lot of the WN mantra/rhetoric is completely non-factual.”
I do agree. A lot of the stats, like the “Sweden is the rape capital of the world” stat is wrong. Because multiple incidences get counted as separate incidences even if they happened to the same person. Also, the widening definition of the word ‘rape. People think sexual assault=rape. It doesn’t. I’ve seen people say that blacks rape over 30 thousand white women per year. But that’s not what FBI Table 43 says. It says just over 4 thousand.
“I also suspect part of the reasons the power at be leave out the Spanish (and Portuguese) is that the “Everyone has their own states, except Whites” is challenged, because of Amerinds.”
What do you mean.
1. In Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, they refer to a Christian Arab lady as ‘indistinguishable’ from Frenchmen/women. That may reflect the general feelings at the time.
2. If Amerindians in Latin America are ruled by Whites, it means that both Amerinds and Whites are the ones without a country, right? Although no people arguing with the Alt movements will ever bring that up, so I’m skeptical of why the elite WNs would care.
That is not universally the case throughout Latin America however, just a quirky idea.
I’m just trying to get to the bottom of this “Hispanic” mystery/nonsense. Obviously it does not reflect well on the intellect (thinking critically) or general culture of the country, this stuff is taught in like, 3rd grade.
Stormfront has colonized many impressionable minds among WN Europeans.
”1. In Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, they refer to a Christian Arab lady as ‘indistinguishable’ from Frenchmen/women. That may reflect the general feelings at the time.”
Most syrians are not christians…
Possibly because most of christian arab ladies are ”whiter” than the muslim ones, 😉
”2. If Amerindians in Latin America are ruled by Whites, it means that both Amerinds and Whites are the ones without a country, right? Although no people arguing with the Alt movements will ever bring that up, so I’m skeptical of why the elite WNs would care.”
I had to read again and did not really understand.
His attempts to justify the biological genocide of white people is priceless and assuming that you are also white, is sick.
”That is not universally the case throughout Latin America however, just a quirky idea.
I’m just trying to get to the bottom of this “Hispanic” mystery/nonsense. Obviously it does not reflect well on the intellect (thinking critically) or general culture of the country, this stuff is taught in like, 3rd grade.”
Your intellect is critical in order to be in a state of dullness.
Stupids who try to be deep thinkers do not usually have breath and end up drowning, take care.
Most nationalists and white trumpits are white lower cognitive ability and greater instinctive ability, where is the mystery *
*”Possibly because most of christian arab ladies are ”whiter” than the muslim ones,😉*”
Religion and ethnicity are one and the same, you got me on that one (Sarcasm)
Basically, and I’ve explained my reasoning in the face of your non-sensical personal attacks, that although are some merits to “White genocide” most of it is utter nonsense.
Spain was and is still superior to the pasty limey anglos and merican-dunces.
Spain’s purpose was to extract gold from the new world, and they did, and they took all of it. Then they enslaved the Amerindians, then they realized blacks made better slaves, then they regretted and mixed with them and “assimilated” them, and created these nations and left them to their own devices.
Anglo Proles created this farcical nation out of thin air, which served no purpose to Britain in terms of wealth or power. Nada, nunca…
Who is “Yente”?
Me apparently. Swarthy William is jealous of my whiteness so he’s trying to start a rumour that I’m a hebe.
I’ve been told,I look like 3;
this guy;
(Half South Italian, Quarter North, One quarter French Quebecois )
Young Bernie Sanders
(Ashkenazi)
and Elvis
(Anglo)
Marsha, on the other hand………….
I’ve been told I look like Heath Ledger.
Cept I’m not going bald and I have long locks.
do any here not know that peepee is a chink?
I found a picture of you……………
I generally like your rhetoric,
but you can be taken down once in a while? Only fair, right?
except i really look like this…
Allen West was purported a black man who was accepted to a WN group. He hates most blacks, a self hater, but he plays it well with class.
Lol, Allen West the political figure and author?
Allen West is very eloquent for someone who leans right.
America’s left-right politics is this: racial minorities on the right are generally saner and smarter than those who tread left, and vice versa for Whites.
But BUT, America is a right wing country.
There isn’t anything liberal in America or the Anglo Celibate Sphere.
How many topless beach babes have you seen in Spain vs America, or Muslim Turkey vs America?
Turks are boring, but they know when to get naughty.
Lion’s right-o-sphere followers, are mostly pieces of strewn trash.
Pumpkin, here’s a project suggestion for you. Create a list from most to least evolved humans. Be as specific as possible.
Speaking of Bobby Fischer, you should do an article on him and his projected IQ, PP. You frequently see absurd numbers like 180 or 190 when people discuss his IQ. But to his credit, he was not only a chess grandmaster and world champion but an autodidact who taught himself Russian just so he could read Russian chess books (despite being a high school drop out). It certainly helps that both of his parents were Ashkenazi Jews and his biological father was a brilliant physicist.
Kasparov, another chess world champion touted as having a 190 IQ, has a tested IQ of 135. I wouldn’t be surprised if Fischer’s IQ was in the range of 130-140.
On a side note, it’s hardly surprising to see how many chess grandmasters are Ashkenazi Jews. It is kind of interesting, however, that Fischer became so intensely antisemetic despite being Jewish on both sides of his family. I suspect he was more than a little autistic; I’ve observed a fair bit of intense antisemitism (and general racism) in high IQ savants with autistic characteristics.
peepee thinks it’s the opposite.
fischer was fischer and nothing else.
he was unique.
he had no symptoms of asd except for his obsession with one subject, chess. he spoke fluently and was a good athlete.
the ruling anglo-american elite is selected in part for obedience and conformity and thus a certain lack of social intelligence.
anti-semitism is the antithesis of autism.
Yes, I will definitely do an article on Bobby Fischer’s IQ
The 180 figure has been corroborated, but it was a ratio score. So his deviation IQ was probably in the 160s (?).
Both of Fischer’s parents were extremely intelligent. Regina Fischer studied at an elite university. Paul Nemenyi was a top-tier physicist. An IQ of 160 makes sense.
and SCZ basically doesn’t exist for anyone with an IQ > 115.
at least using peepee’s preferred linear extrapolation model.
john nash was a genius at math.
but maybe not in general?
is that possible?
that said…
people with very high IQs will tend to behave in a Diogenic manner at times.
they will tend to be weird.
but that’s very different from being crazy.
they’re much less likely to hear voices or believe they’re being spied on or whatever stupid shit they believe.
if you’ve ever dealt with genuinely crazy people, it’s pretty clear that their crazy would vanish if they were just a little smarter.
…or whatever stupid shit genuine schizophrenics believe.
Jorge: I don’t know if you can be a stupid math genius.
“and SCZ basically doesn’t exist for anyone with an IQ > 115.
at least using peepee’s preferred linear extrapolation model.”
Linear extrapolation from a bell curve?
It would more look like this, it ceases when the Function approaches the population number.
I would love to see you comprehensively address the anti-Asian bias I commonly see as a subset of HBDers, with their implications of Asian IQ being negated by questionable assessments like less creativity, fewer civilizational achievements, lower verbal IQ, or lower standard deviation so that whites still come out on top.
Those dismissals have always seemed facile and motivated by a certain ignobility to me, as accusations of “yellow fever” against you seem to be as well.
Well Asians score higher than whites, but have accomplished less than whites, at least within the last several centuries. People need to explain why a race with high IQ has lower creative output. That’s not necessarily anti-Asian bias, it’s just trying to make sense of things. My explanation for the relative lack of East Asian creative output is that because they’re more evolved, they’re more mentally stable. By contrast, whites are still primitive enough to be a little psycho, and you need that to be truly creative.
They seem to have a high creative output artistically, though–in film, literature, animation, visual art, architecture, and increasingly so in medical and scientific research etc.
This is where the concept of creativity becomes a bit hazy for me.
When people speak of creativity/innovation in this sphere, it often comes across as moving the goalposts once I’ve pointed out the artistic angle, because then many people often turn it into a matter of “Well, by creativity/innovation we mean coming up with totally new scientific/technological paradigms,” despite the fact that East Asians have their highest scores on visuospatial reasoning, and thus their greatest strengths would appear to be technical.
But there is often the implication behind many who seem to have an interest in downplaying Asian creativity, that their achievements–especially of a scientific or technical nature–are confined to the realm of improving upon the inventions of others and working within the paradigmatic frameworks others have created, although those who assert this selectively prefer not to view it this way when it comes to things that others did not invent which were perfected by whites, and are motivated to sidestep how this process of informational exchange and civilization advance often seems to occur in the context of a feedback loop of improvement between different peoples.
I don’t doubt that Asians have, in the aggregate, differing psychological profiles which may encourage more conformity, but I also have to wonder how low in mental illness they can really be when Japan and South Korea have such notably high rates of suicide, to the point that is has been increasingly acknowledged in those nations as a massive public health crisis. This leads me to believe that seemingly still waters often run deep with the mental disturbance that often characterizes intelligent people exposed to the downsides of modernity.
I’m almost certain, though, that the talk of lower standard deviation that is common among self-identified white nationalists is not an accurate assessment of IQ distribution, and hence when people parrot that I tend to think that they are either out of their depth or simply have an actual anti-Asian bias wherein they have some kind of investment in wanting it to be true.
I don’t throw out such accusations eagerly, though, as we all know too well that simply making true statements that others would prefer weren’t so are often greeted with the self-serving accusation of anti-[x] bias on the part of the speaker.
Indeed. Although PP’s schizoidal type illness rates idea is on he right track. However, I STILL believe worshipping Whites and using HBD as an excuse for that and White Supremacism is nonsense. You have to sort through the nonsense.
Sadly, it seems far too few people have an interest in the discovery of truth and prefer to confirm a pre-existing inclination, either by failing to explore pertinent questions or by concocting increasingly preposterous denials in the face of specific counter evidence.
And on the other hand, you have people who despise HBD for those very same reasons.
It is good to be pro-white, but one doesn’t need to become an actual white supremacist to accomplish that–and all that does is affirm the idea that you are only permitted to choose between being an SJW or a neo-Nazi. Nationalism for all peoples does not have to entail that kind of mindless, narcissistic hatred and grievance.
And of course, even if one does adopt a nationalist perspective, this does not have to turn into a moralistic prohibition against “race mixing” anywhere in the world.
I only wish these shades of subtlety could be addressed as actual, substantive positions more often, rather than as weak, compromised intermediary stances in between positions, existing only as slippery slopes inevitably leading to some undesired extreme.
Mixed race in Brasil specially with negroids is a disaster at the best.
There is a good reasons to avoid mixing race but i’m also against the histrionic prohibition of it. always i think ratio-nally, the best quasi-always (or always, who will know*) is the balanced judgments.
what is happening is that the des-government of the western nations are purposely incentiving their population, specially the average joey to the mixed with other races by globalist/political reasons.
most of all big media propaganda is not to the real smart (clever) people but to the mental slaves.
waffleironmarch- Good insights. Yes, in many ways this emotional attachment to Whites, VIA HBD is just like HBD deniers who don’t want to criticize NAMs.
Pro-White, is okay, regardless (as is Pro-Black, etc). As you said.
However, it seems like 99/100 Pro-White is really “Anti-Anybody else”.
Santoculto you ARE mixed-race in Brazil so seriously STFU.
”Santoculto you ARE mixed-race in Brazil so seriously STFU”
nuanced
subtle
neutral
everything you can’t be
i will repeat
”i’m not that very mixed race people”
i look caucasoid
i asked if i look white in a anthro forum and almost people there answer that i look mostly ”white”
if i’m mixed race, supposedly i have to avoid any criticism about my condition
i’m trying to be fair as possible
seems stupid for you is not*
s korea and japan lead the world in patents per capita.
i remember a conversation with a chinese grad student.
“but what is talent?” he asked
“the talent for the things that make economies grow”, i said.
maybe.
or maybe verbal IQ has some mysterious utility.
but it does seem that chinese and the rest of ne asians are still “pre-christian” whereas europeans are post-christian.
that is, ne asians don’t give a shit about other ne asians.
they’re un-cooperative and un-empathetic.
the japs are the best of the lot by far.
I’ve seen people try and counter that with “oh, but the total number of patents says nothing about the quality of those patents,” but then they conveniently seem to be fine with leaving that as an open question to go unaddressed. But certainly there seems to be limitations on the number of truly paradigm-smashing new innovative concepts that can be arrived at after a while, even with an IQ which in the past would have been high enough to discover great things.
And the fact that they are enterprising and industrious enough to engage in even micro-innovation on such a massive scale would seem to give the lie to easy assertions that they are robotic, psychologically unengaged, and uninterested in challenge.
There are situations where different doesn’t mean worse or lesser but can actually be just as good and necessary. This is a far cry from the “differently a led” rhetoric that excuses low IQ. It is an acknowledgement of a meaningful but often beneficial kind of difference in that it has proven itself capable of advancing civilization in its own way.
—
That being said, though, there’s no doubt that Asian IQ runs the gamut from the brilliant to what can only politely be politely termed as “dull normal”–a phenomenon that seems to have a lot to do with the differential selection pressures of barley farming versus rice farming. Why, in light of this, “Asians” as a large racial group are so often asserted to have a lower standard deviation than “whites” is beyond me…until I realize that it’s just an instinctive rationalization some are inclined to posit in order to explain differences in certain measures of historic civilizational achievement.
—
As for the verbal IQ issue, I recall seeing a discussion on GNXP which seemed to reveal that Northeast Asian verbal IQ is no worse than whites on average–it’s just lower than Jews. Therefore, some set of average personality traits would seem to likely be responsible.
—
The Japanese do seem to have gotten some of the best genetics, seeing as they are a hybrid of Korean/Chinese/Ainu who evolved for a centuries in isolation, which serves to add in an element the others did not get, and to have it refined by unique circumstances.
I must say, though, that for all NEAs, the lowered propensity for excess affective empathy would seem to put them at a greater advantage relative to Northwestern Europeans, whose ongoing self-inflicted genocide can be witnessed in real time and painful detail. Only time will tell how this intriguingly distasteful saga pans out and which civilizations will be best suited for long-term survival amidst it all.
misterious utility of verbal intelligence here:
1. Verbal ability
Verbal ability, I would argue, is essential to high intelligence. Not only a vocabulary more extensive than most others have, but also the ability to use it. Knowing which word is a good fit to a specific thought shows an awareness of difference, and being able to make distinctions is essential to intelligence. You cannot make evaluations without being able to discern. You cannot be meticulous if you don’t see the detail, and high intelligence and intellectual sloppiness are not on particularly friendly terms.
It is no coincidence that wit is often considered to accompany intelligence. Please notice here that we speak of wit, not of being a joker. The word has implications far beyond being funny and Voltaire was entirely wrong when he said that a witty saying doesn’t prove anything. In fact, it very often does.
Anyhow, let’s continue. So, words are shortcuts that will both refine and speed up thought processes. You can figure something out without verbalising your thoughts to yourself, but as a rule it will take a longer time.
For most thinking, words would be the very modus operandi of thought. Synthesis can operate wordlessly and has elements of intuition, but analysis without words is almost a meaningless idea.
As a sign of intelligence, verbal ability is useful to others who have a decent intelligence, but it may be near useless if someone of low intelligence tries to use this marker to find the smarties, reason being that they won’t be able to differentiate between what sounds “intellectual”, difficult, hard to grasp and what is just someone pretending to be intelligent.
I mention this as I believe there is a part to verbal intelligence in finding the best way to use words for communication, which means to speak as whomever you talk with understands you. If you are unable to simplify your thought, and how you express it, perhaps you are not that smart after all. (Assuming it is possible. There’ll be a lot of specialist knowledge where this cannot be done with reasonable effort.)
That is to say that sounding smart is probably not, in itself, a sign of high intelligence.
Words and understanding them well also makes it easier for a person to internalise the conversations of others into their own thought. Body language may be important to convey your attitude, but to convey the actual specifics of a matter, you’ll need to express yourself verbally. If you can internalise the words of others, you’ll get a social advantage that the less proficient ones will not have.
2. Peer group
Another way of identifying intelligent people is by their social circles. At least that is my opinion, based upon personal experience, and I’ll share it as if all agreed with me on this—to me—self-evident point.
Intelligent people being able to internalise more complex conversations, and being more intelligent in general, will often see that the best alternative is D and not A. If they care about, say, the place they work in, they’ll “manipulate” the situation so that D is what is chosen. When they take the step all the way they become the big fish in the small pond, leading the venture. This is the entrepreneur or business man that has an edge because he is so much smarter. (The connection to internalised conversations is that this will also open up for deeper understanding of social contexts, relations etc., in turn being an asset for a leadership role.)
The alternative is to become the small fish in a big pond. That’s the personality type that will rather choose academia.
I don’t really know who chooses which path, or why, but these seem the most obvious choices. Each has its drawbacks. The choices are ways to deal with the situation that quite few understand what you say or the things you point out, so you may have to take the leadership role just to get things done the way they should be done, whether or not you are interested in having that role.
If you choose an environment where people tend to be more intelligent than average, the typical example of which is academia, you may value the presence of peers more than the entrepreneur is. Or the entrepreneur has that need satisfied by other means.
In some respect, a noticeable difference in intelligence in a social setting may be like you and the less intelligent person are speaking different languages. The more intelligent one is likely to be “bi-lingual”, but will want to speak in their native tongue now and then, and to be able to do so, they need to establish a peer group not too dissimilar in terms of intelligence.
3. Authority
Emotions are important, but on their own they might as well lead to catastrophes as bliss. We need to be able to choose rationality, which is easier if you are comfortable with yourself in making this choice. If you trust that you are smart enough, that is. This trust is something that will be natural for someone who has been right, has understood matters before being told the right answers (and has had their understanding confirmed), and so on. People who end up in trouble after thinking and whose thinking is prone to misfiring will not feel this trust.
This kind of self-trust (inner authority), however, is relatively antithetical to reliance on external authority. For this reason, the more intelligent person may have a more complex relationship to authority than the average person. I will not claim they are more resistant to the Milgram experiment, but it would seem clear they would be more self-conflicted about their participation and obedience, being less able to dis-trust their own convictions in favour of the voice of authority (when that voice is off by a mile).
Which is not to claim that intelligent people are never on the wrong side. But I’ll leave that aside in this already long answer.
Disclaimer, sort of
If you did not notice, a lot of this answer is based upon opinion and my own observations rather than studies conducted according scientific method. I’m not apologising for that, but merely want to point it out one more time, which is to say that if you rely I on what I say, you would seem to trust some random “authority” who is way too inclined to voice his opinions anyhow. Don’t do that.
Check. Verify. Establish your own answers.
Be smart!
There is no need to address it. It’s just morons who can’t accept that East Asians are slightly more intelligent.
They do have a lower verbal IQ, 99 for the Chinese for instance from a 30 year longitudinal study.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/06/06/chinese-iq/
Lower civilizational achievements? Yea if you close your eyes to most of history.
The lower overall SD is unsubstantiated. Richard Lynn was emailed about it and he said there’s no data to corroborate it.
Not surprisingly, people who use HBD to justify “superiority” (whatever that means) have no idea what they’re talking about.
Correct, but the greatness of a people just aren’t numbers. East Asian societies have long evolved into what has become a lurking danger in the Western world, namely tyranny and repressive inequality.
East Asians suck for the most part. I see them here in the states, and they will never hold a candle to White people in terms of morality, equality and just the over dynamic nature of Western civilization.
East Asians are staid, boring and unyielding. The West has recently bottom out due to its over dynamism.
https://www.quora.com/Are-there-signs-to-see-if-you-have-a-high-IQ-besides-taking-IQ-tests
Jews have this superiority complex that gentiles are beneath them. At best, Jews are delusional and they were always delusional.
Jews are dependent of White people for their survival, essentially the parasitic Jew stereotype is correct.
Southern Europeans succes and Nordics & East Asians “failure” is mostly caused by geography. Not biology.
Go on.
Lower visual IQs of Jews has to do with biology, not geography.
Lower visual IQs of Jews and blacks are a problem for White nations. Furthermore, many of them have bad attitudes, more so than other groups.
Joos have been confined in urban environments. Urban/social environments select for verbal (oral and abstract/vocabulary) skills.
People in lower density areas tend to be ”selected” (or whatever) for non-verbal skills/non-inter and intrapersonal skills.
This is regarding Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence from Stormfront. Some of their posters sound intelligent.
Can Pumpkin refute this?
Jews (not even Ashkenazi alone) are not smarter than Whites on average. Probably a little below, in fact. We have done this topic about a thousand times, but let me give you my top ten list again for how we know they AREN’T smart:
1. The mean IQ of the other ethnic groups that compose the nation of Israel are not low enough to account for the mean IQ of that nation (94) if Jews were smarter than Whites are. And note also the their GDP gives confirmation of their national IQ, so it’s not just a false measurement.
2. If evolution gives at most about 2 IQ points per millennium. For Jews to have evolved to reach our IQ in that last thousand years, their increase would have to be about 700% faster than this.
3. Various IQ tests have given estimates for the Jewish IQ everywhere from far below ours to far above (the latter showing up out of the blue in the modern age of PC mind control). Why are the lower—and more realistic—measurements now ignored?
4. IQ of mixed-race people tends to fall between that of the two progenitor races. The Semite mean is 85 and the White mean is 100. Jewish IQ can be expected to fall somewhere in between.
5. The National Longitudinal Survey of Youth data have demonstrated clearly that Jewish financial and occupational success does not correlate with their IQ at all, which means that they get ahead by cheating, usually ethnic nepotism. The ridiculous IQ-score claims are undoubtedly a result of this same cheating.
6. Despite POLITICAL motivations resulting in lots of Jews being handed Nobel prizes, only Whites (four of them) have ever won the prize more than once.
7. Of the pragmatically useful inventions created in the last five hundred years, Jews have contributed essentially zero. Credit for relativity was stolen from a White man. Credit for polio vaccine was stolen from a White man. So on down the list.
8. Jews show a very disproportionate rate of psychological disorders and personality disorders, which are indicative of cognitive malfunction.
9. Compared to Whites, Jews average 375 points lower on the SAT Math, 228 points lower on the GRE quantitative, 7.3 points lower on the ACT composite.
10. Israel, despite receiving billions in extorted money from White nations, is a total dump.
Hello, i find these postings very interesting with my respect as a chinese. i dont have any evidence but i have my own opinion from experience or intuition.
1. White people are the smartest.
2. Chinese are averagely smarter, creative than Japanese as Chinese are more diverse but you west people probably do not see this as of now but you will see. (Simply, we have a larger range in almost everything than Japs/Korean, height(low to high), size(thin to fat), and look(mogo face to european face)…..and so on.
3. I think the German environment caused the Jews in Germany smarter than other Jews. ( as a soccer fan, i know many cases how german soccer league can make average level (sucked) players succeed after they stayed in Germany for a few years).
if you see these as trash, simply please delete them i just wanna share..lol sorry my english and lack of logic or reasoning here.. have a great day.
Middle Easterners are more talented than East Asians — if they are able to get rid of the disease called fanatical Islam.
The Chinese are such a morally inferior people.
JS,
Morally inferior people exist in every race.
Pingback: A more detailed map about average IQ by country. – HEAFR
Pumpkin, maybe the higher a person stands on g, the more discrepancy you get in g sub-components level. In classical, almost no great composer is jewish, but almost the best interpreter are jewish. Composing must be related to a spatial skill jewish lacks. I’ve done a blind test, hearing a hundred interpretation of difficult piano pieces and selecting the 6 bests each time for Liszt, Chopin and Bach (most interpretations and interpreters I didn’t know) with 10 pieces. around 75% (43 of 60) of my blind choices were jewish pianist but they represented 10% of the panel. There were only one asian (Yundi Li) and one half-black (André Watts) and one Gypsie (Georg Cziffra). The Gypsie was my most chosen pianist (but very irregular, coming on top or very low). My best average was Martha Argerich.
Pumpkin, maybe the higher a person stands on g, the more discrepancy you get in g sub-components level.
Well that’s true in some sense because given say a correlation of 0.5 between g and a given ability, people will typically regress 50% to the mean form g to said ability, and vice versa, so the more extreme the g (high or low), the more extreme a 50% regression.
In addition there’s a theory Mug of Pee constantly cites, known as Spearman’s Law of Diminishing Returns (SLODR) which argues that g is less important at high levels, but I’m skeptical of this.
1) 🙂
You know there is a bigger difference in absolut value but not in relative values. Like siblings of tall parents versus of short ones.
2) 🙂
If he thinks 136 is a lot (that’s crazy because it is a lot), I bet he wish that more than that is useless
—> my hypotehsis would be – to keep running the megaphor – parents had a v energy that madr them very tall. The kidd could be a mixture of very tall, very muscular or very fat. The extreme v “choosing” or having the opportunity to invest inself in either way in quantities (whose averzge regress to the mean) but less proportionate than people having less v. I remember you said Ann Roe made a measurement mistake for the 64 eminent scientists because there were extremel verbal (160) and not spatial (140) wich is a 100 factor divergence. Tha could be one example. But stat could confirm or falsify this with the many data from Wechsler.
There were also 3 women for 24 men (the panel was one third women) : Martha Argerich, Maria Joa Pires and Brigit Engerer . Valentina Lisitsa came very close (8 to 12 spot) many times but never in the top 6 interpretations. Also Alicia de Larrocha, Clara Haskil, Myra Hess and many others. They came in the 10-20 spot.
And my favourites after reflecting on my choices are Josef Lhévinne and Alexander Gavrylyuk.
Who determines what “intelligence” is? Is intelligence equivalent to ones ability to communicate linguistically? Is intelligence learned/programmed, or is it an innate quality? If one person can theorize the effects/characteristics of “music” on a quantum level, one can create music by manipulating an instrument, and one can build build the instrument from scratch; which person most accurately displays “intelligence.” Who developed the “intelligence test?” Wouldn’t it inherently be biased to their own interpretation? IQ means absolutely nothing in reality.
“Everyone is a genius, but if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live it’s whole life believing that it is stupid.”
So, the “genius,” is the one who believes in his/her own abilities, and disregards the irrelevant judgments of others. A “standardized genius,” is no genius at all. Just a well programmed copy of an original.
That’s the funny thing about it. There is no agreed-upon definition of intelligence. Nor an agreed-upon theory of individual differences in intelligence. They’re ‘measuring something’ that could just as well be measuring a measure of historic social class formation. (No, that’s not The argument I’m making incase someone will accuse me of being a SJW).
“…because the deserts of central Australia have few landmarks and the nomadic Aboriginal peoples needed to note and remember the location of such landmarks as exist to construct mental spatial maps of their environments to find their way home…”
This is true every time I travel anywhere without gps access. Whenever I have access to the gps, those mental functions are used for operating the interface. If my mind wasn’t busy operating an interface, and processing excessive amounts of information (irrelevant information, primarily), it seems that it would be far more proficient at performing many functions.
The same is true for arctic peoples.
I think it’s just that the same is true of all people when we are experiencing reality, rather than attempting to measure our mental constructs of reality with concepts.
All what you say is intelligence but we have a hierarchy of relevance specially to survive. So, musical skills would be categorized as ”intelligence type OR facet of secondary or terciary importance”. While metacognition//self-understanding or knowledge would be categorized as ”intelligence type OR facet of first-order importance”. Verbal also would be categorized as ”intelligence type OR facet of first-order importance”. People can survive well, specially in natural environments [we need have this scenario-refference even because artificial environments tend to be totally derived from natural ones] without musical skills, specially for humans [maybe less for some species of male birds]. But people will survive poorly without a at least minimally normal verbal skills [even a lower avg IQ]. And even less without a minimally functional metacognitive skills.
I was addressing the literal original definition of “genius.” In which case, my statements were completely accurate. And I respectfully reject your exclusion of musical abilities/talents, based on your subjective assertion that music is somehow an invalid example, due to an implication of survival/importance. You simply don’t have the authority to impose such stipulations, at least in regard to the implied definition of genius that I am addressing. Besides, discrediting the relevance of “music” in our social/cultural evolution is a blatant error.
Ok, this was your personal opinion,
why*
I’m not DISCREDITING the relevance of ”MUSIC” [why ” ”] but giving it the correct levels of relevance and no doubt will be less than factual understanding or heuristics.
“..people will survive poorly, without having at least minimally normal verbal skills (or, with a low average IQ)”
What are you basing that claim on? Are you suggesting that you are capable of externally measuring another person’s perceived quality of life? I am in close relation to multiple friends and family members who are “mentally challenged,” or whatever the current “p.c.” terminology would be). I can’t say with any degree of certainty, that I experience the same level of happiness in day-to-day life, that I’ve seen lucidly exhibited, by people that have absolutely no inclination to “fake” their happiness in order to project an acceptable image of themselves. I’m not claiming that their happiness is due to their level of cognitive abilities. I am familiar with their home environment. That seems to be the key determinant, IMO.
”What are you basing that claim on? Are you suggesting that you are capable of externally measuring another person’s perceived quality of life?”
I’m not saying about quality of life but minimally required verbal skills [be literate] to be capable to be minimally functional in ”modern” society.
”I am in close relation to multiple friends and family members who are “mentally challenged,” or whatever the current “p.c.” terminology would be). I can’t say with any degree of certainty, that I experience the same level of happiness in day-to-day life”
How ”same level” it’s exactly*
”that I’ve seen lucidly exhibited, by people that have absolutely no inclination to “fake” their happiness in order to project an acceptable image of themselves. I’m not claiming that their happiness is due to their level of cognitive abilities. I am familiar with their home environment. That seems to be the key determinant, IMO.”
But we are debating about happiness levels…
“How ”same level” it’s exactly”
I’m not sure what your question (or statement??) means.
I’m basically trying to say that I don’t see any inherent correlation between “verbal skills/IQ” and “happiness/sense of well-being/quality of life.” If anything, it seems that “verbal skills/IQ” could potentially have a detrimental effect on those aspects of a person’s life experience. “What you don’t know, won’t hurt you” – “Ignorance is bliss” – “You can be right, or you can be happy” – “The only true wisdom is knowing that you know nothing” – “The universe itself isn’t complicated; it is attempting to define it with words and symbols, that makes it so” (this is also applicable to our selves because we use intelligence in attempts to define ourselves.. “Trying to define yourself, is like trying to bite your own teeth”)
“But we are debating about happiness levels…”
You wrote “…people will survive poorly…”
Is that not a paraphrasing of “quality of life”? “Poor” is a degree of “quality.”
”Is intelligence learned/programmed, or is it an innate quality?”
In its principle yes as well all mental traits. We born with potentialities and throughout our lives we will accomplishing or filling this potentialities in diverse ways.
Indeed, most people FILLING their potentialities and those who truly accomplished something we tend to call highly creative–creators…
We born with pre-determined quantitative and even qualitative levels of psycho-cognitive reachabilities. We are earlier exposed to human social scenarios and filling the basis of our potentialities during first childhood. Quantitative potentialities seems less plastic than qualitative potentialities but seems a mistake to believe that the second potentiality will be endlessly developable.
”If one person can theorize the effects/characteristics of “music” on a quantum level, one can create music by manipulating an instrument, and one can build build the instrument from scratch; which person most accurately displays “intelligence.””
Difficult, it’s depending the type of category of intelligence we are talking about: fluid [tend to be a near-synonimous to creativity] or chrystallized**
In my view the best and or final or universal characteristic result of intelligence is
factual understanding,
because we need understand the environment we are to survive, the levels of relevance for our own survivability in my view is definitive to define what is more centric-intelligence and what is less. Your example is interesting but specially based on human evolutionary scenario it seems more perypheral to survivability.
We don’t try to understand facts at all, just as recreation… at least in perfect world but because many people think like that.
”Who developed the “intelligence test?” Wouldn’t it inherently be biased to their own interpretation? IQ means absolutely nothing in reality.”
Absolutely but we need start from something and based on psychometricians, aka, people who are less engaged in insufferable abhorrent ideological versions of reality, i mean, they tend to be less emotional-influenced and more robot-like, i mean their biases will be less than if marxists-leninists decided create ”intelligence” tests.
IQ is based on avg civilizational levels and tend to express this genes-culture coevolution specific scenario than for example the adaptational history of many reminiscent hunter gatherers or other variety of pre-civilizational human demos.
But it’s doesn’t mean it’s not valid.
The problem about IQ is not what it reach but what many psychometricians AND IQistics believe it does.
“IN MY VIEW, the best and/or universal chacteristic result of intelligence is..”
Exactly. It is ultimately defined by a subjective perspective. And those are like snowflakes (unique; not the political label).
Marlin, do you think it’s subjective to say humans are smarter than chimps?
Genius.. Genuine.. Genesis..
These are all indicative of a unique and innate quality. Basing a personal understanding/interpretation of intelligence/genius on external sources such as someone else’s assertions is counterintuitive. I’d be interested to know how many recognized “geniuses” consider the quality to be intrinsically correlated to a set of predetermined qualifications… Probably few of them, because considering their recognized level of intelligence, they must realize that it is entirely dependent upon faith in their own abilities, cognitive or otherwise. For certain, Albert Einstein seemed to share this opinion. Unless, that quote was erroneously credited to him. The point is that even if he never said it, the validity of the statement remains intact.
Absolutely. Define “smart.” What we often consider to be “smart,” can just as easily be labeled “insane.” Are we “smart,” because we live out our lives within our mental constructs that are solely responsible for our experiences of anger, depression, inadequacy, irrational fear, hate, regret, shame, etc.?
Marlin,
subjetive is not nihilistic. Everyone who have a point of view about something no have this point of view which are totally divorced from logic, so all definitions, personal, scientific or philosophical definitions, are, more or less, correct, but most of them will be
incomplete
and/or
poorly hierarchized via relevance.
Understand reality is the ultimate utility of intelligence, all living beings need, based on their own levels of perceptivity, understand the reality they live to survive, otherwise… so it’s not subjective.
Drop an adolescent chimp off in the middle of the jungle, after having lived its entire life in captivity, then send a person with an IQ of 140 into that same jungle… Which of them would appear “smart” under those circumstances?
It’s dependent the type of person and the type of chimp you are suggesting because among humans we have those who are strongly culturalists, a spectrum of course, and those who are strongly naturalistics [lean conservatism].
It’s doesn’t mean intelligence concept will be subjective, ”aka”, nihilistic. Indeed in both cases FACTUAL UNDERSTANDING is fundamentally important.
Grasp most important facts of the lived reality/environment is extremely important even to bacterias.
That is a link to a video of a child with legitimately perfect pitch, meaning that he can not only recognize and identify any and every audible sound frequency including all harmonic and dissonant intervals, but he can also reproduce those frequencies and intervals, without an external reference. Do you honestly not recognize the “genius” of that?
Correct. So, to a person who survives financially by means of performing/composing music, its validity is undeniably grasped as a “most important fact of the lives reality/environment.” Meanwhile, the atomic weight of unobtainium, for example, bares no relevance, as it presents absolutely no real-world affect on the person’s life. Subjectivity.
If this child will be capable to have great insights in his area we will can defined him/her as a genius. But i don’t question their uneleven level of potential. But, i’m not understanding well what’s your point**
If intelligence concept is SUBJECTIVE so i can perfectly say: ”he is still ‘delayed’, aka, ‘stupid’ ”…
That being said, I still contend that a chimp would exhibit a clear advantage over ANY human, in the context of jungle scenario. We lack the innate “genius,” possessed by the chimp. Of course, as with everything else, I’m sure there are anomalies.
A chimp would out-survive a human in the jungle because of physical abilities, and not necessarily cognitive ones (though they are smarter than us in some types of memory). More to the point, a chimp’s survival skills are confined to the jungle, while a human (or at least human groups) can survive almost any place on Earth. This is why intelligence is commonly defined as the (cognitive) ability to adapt.
Yes, it’s a price of the way humans have evolved, we are less instinctive than a chimp, and we are hopelessly fragile during long time of our lives. But i don’t think there is such thing ”adolescent chimp” because they mature faster than us and/or their adolescence tend to be quite short.
But i think you are over-using the term ”genius”. Genius is not instinct, but the combination of both, instinct and reason to grasp highest levels of intellectual depht.
You are absolutely free to find this, or any other, example to be trivial. I am in no position to suggest that you are under any obligation to anyone else’s point of view. No point of view is universal. Are you convinced that the “survival of the species” is the only (or even the most important) aspect when considering the relevance of an incomplete intelligence quotient? If that were truly the case, we should all aspire to be nothing more than cockroaches 😜
So if I’m correct in the assumption that you believe “musical (artistic/creative) intelligence” to be objectively trivial in comparison to other aspects of intelligence, is there any objectifiable/universal truth to the inherent relevance of human survival? Especially, in regards to life in the present moment, which is the only thing that has ever existed. That’s “philosophical b.s.,” but the “left brain” has to be taken into account. Yin and Yang. There’s another cultural example of “genius” level intelligence, that plays no objectifiable (obvious) role in the survival of the species. Still, there’s no objectifiable evidence to prove that it doesn’t.
”You are absolutely free to find this, or any other, example to be trivial.”
I’m not absolutely free to think in the way i want, because i always need check my point of views with reality. It’s not negotiable, music is important too, but no question that it’s not in the same level of importance than.. self-knowledge.
Self-knowledge, one of the most important products of self-awareness, what i already said here, define human intelligence itself, better than any other facet of intelligence.
”I am in no position to suggest that you are under any obligation to anyone else’s point of view.”
If i think your point of views fits well with reality so i will be self-obligated to accept them over my own. I no have any problem with it.
” No point of view is universal. ”
Must be, great part of human conflicts is due exactly because this frequent shocks among regionalisms.
”Are you convinced that the “survival of the species” is the only (or even the most important) aspect when considering the relevance of an incomplete intelligence quotient?”
I don’t understood your question. I think factual understanding is the core of any type of intelligence or any facet of it. Survival of species is the most fundamental products of factual understanding which are one of the most fundamental product of intelligence, if both are not the same thing, but it’s doens’t mean that survival and factual understanding are basically the same thing, they are in the same process, but not in the same ”place” of this process.
”If that were truly the case, we should all aspire to be nothing more than cockroaches 😜”
Why you concluded this*
Factual understanding, in minimal ways [all living beings included humans accomplish] and in maximal ways [only humans can reach], it’s the basal. Be the basal don’t mean be the only-one who really matter. Music REALLY matter too and in some species music is instrumental not just to the ears but also to the reproductive success of a entire species. For us, music matter too, but it’s not absolute as factual understanding, self awareness are.
”So if I’m correct in the assumption that you believe “musical (artistic/creative) intelligence” to be objectively trivial in comparison to other aspects of intelligence, is there any objectifiable/universal truth to the inherent relevance of human survival?”
oi*
”Especially, in regards to life in the present moment, which is the only thing that has ever existed.”
Cockroaches think like that, 😉
”That’s “philosophical b.s.,” but the “left brain” has to be taken into account. Yin and Yang. There’s another cultural example of “genius” level intelligence, that plays no objectifiable (obvious) role in the survival of the species. Still, there’s no objectifiable evidence to prove that it doesn’t.”
I don’t understood you, what you mean*
Correction, self awareness is not even a facet of human intelligence [and intelligence in general] but its own core.
A individual can live fully-functioning without heard or compose music in your entire life.
But i’m not despising music or arts, for god sake!!
I believe we are experiencing a lapse of communication. The entire point that I’m attempting to make is that Self-knowledge is the most important aspect of intelligence, considering that it is the means by which we define importance and the means by which we measure the concept of intelligence. We create importance and even intelligence, based on self-knowledge, because both are concepts; not “real” things that exist. They are judgements. I’m not sure that we aren’t on the same page, because I’m not sure exactly where we are in disagreement. So, would you agree that “race” (which is simply a concept) plays no role in intellectual development, rather it is environment, culture, the perceived availability of opportunity, life experience, etc..
Would you agree that our individual perceptions of reality are basically equivalent to our individual state of mind? Or at least, that they are correlated? Or, am I still misunderstanding you?
”I believe we are experiencing a lapse of communication.”
I agree.
”The entire point that I’m attempting to make is that Self-knowledge is the most important aspect of intelligence, considering that it is the means by which we define importance and the means by which we measure the concept of intelligence.”
??
”We create importance and even intelligence, based on self-knowledge, because both are concepts; not “real” things that exist.”
Oh lord!!
Nonexistent things = Jewsus kraistus
If i know how smart i’m in… whatever, vocabulary size in my mother tongue, not in perfect accuracy, but very good, so it’s a real thing….
We don’t create importance or intelligence, we obey them. We are mostly products of previous circunstamces, specially biological ones.
”They are judgements. I’m not sure that we aren’t on the same page, because I’m not sure exactly where we are in disagreement.”
That’s why i’m trying to figure out.
”So, would you agree that “race” (which is simply a concept) plays no role in intellectual development, rather it is environment, culture, the perceived availability of opportunity, life experience, etc..”
Do you have problems with concepts and what they mean. Concepts are, at priori, symbolical representations of, often, real things. They are abstractions because they are associations between symbols and this, often, real things. But what they try to reach is real, so when they are very accurate to reach the associated-real thing, they become real by association and not by their nature itself.
Race is a real thing, we can debate how variable race can be. I was a original thinker, at least here, about the idea that race is not just physiological OR psycho-physiological/biological, because we can select a population based exclusively on their psychological features but with a diversity of physiological phenotypes.
Race plays a role in intellectual development as well any other previous features and mostly by selective association and reinforcement of this associated physiological and psycho-cognitive traits than by considerable causation. But its role is huge specially when we a dominance of this traits.
”Would you agree that our individual perceptions of reality are basically equivalent to our individual state of mind? Or at least, that they are correlated? Or, am I still misunderstanding you?”
Basically personal biases*
Regardless if this is true or not, and based on your vague sentences, i may agree with you, but i need examples to fully understand what your point here… the reality there is with or without our approval and there are a diversity of how good human individuals are to reach, at least the most important facts, for example, why [certain] people behave like that and not like this*
“??”
I guess that means that you don’t understand?
“Nonexistent things = Jewsus kraistus”
And..
“If i know how smart i’m in… whatever, vocabulary size in my mother tongue, not in perfect accuracy, but very good, so it’s a real thing….”
Well now, that all depends on who or what you think “Jewsus kraistus” is, was, isn’t, or wasn’t.
If I know that “Jewsus kraistus” is my means of personal salvation, due to a tangible affect on my existence, that is evident to everyone who knew me prior to my redemption, then “Jewsus kraistus” exists, even if only in the way that “faith,” “hope,” “love,” and “mercy” exist, “so it’s a real thing.” So, “if I know” that “Jewsus kraistus” exists, it doesn’t matter whether or not you know that.
“We don’t create importance or intelligence, we obey them.”
Ok, “create” was inaccurate. We define/observe “them.” But where do “they” exist? They only exist within human observation.
“We are mostly products of previous circunstamces, specially biological ones”
Our physical bodies are. Absolutely no one can explain the origin of consciousnesses, which is what we really are. I am not my body, because it’s “my” body. So if it’s “my” body, who or what am “I,” that “my” body belongs to? Whoever or whatever it is that I am, “I Am.”
“Do you have problems with concepts and what they mean.”
No, I can read some words as well as most other high school dropouts, and I have access to Google 😏
“Concepts are, at priori, symbolical representations of, often, real things. They are abstractions because they are associations between symbols and this, often, real things. But what they try to reach is real, so when they are very accurate to reach the associated-real thing, they become real by association and not by their nature itself.”
Oh, you mean kinda like “Jewsus kraistus…”
“Race is a real thing, we can debate how variable race can be”
What we call “race,” are social categories. “Race” is a social construct. But I suppose that doesn’t make it any less real, as long as we’re using a broad definition of “real,” but not “really.”
“the reality there is with or without our approval and there are a diversity of how good human individuals are to reach, at least the most important facts, for example, why [certain] people behave like that and not like this*”
Umm… “??” 😉
I mean no offense with anything I’ve said, so I hope you don’t take any. I enjoy discussing things like this with well-educated people who don’t resort to verbal poo-hurling. Normally, someone would’ve suggested that I should “just go kill myself” by now.
I think it’s just that the same is true of all people when we are experiencing reality, rather than attempting to measure our mental constructs of reality with concepts.
I meant to reply to the previous sub-thread…
This is all bunk unless they can use some metric other than IQ, which is really quite worthless. The overall result seems plausible, but without using a means of intelligence testing that requires a person to already have the right vocabulary for the test, familiarity with the idiomatic expressions used in the test, and familiarity with uncommon symbols used in the test (such as sheet music symbols, which are used on many IQ tests, and many smarter people can’t read sheet music.)
In other words, if you’re not culturally exposed to constructs that IQ tests use, it doesn’t matter how good your intellectual abilities are, you’ll still score low on the test, whereas even a dumb person can score high if they’re very familiar with these social constructs.
The fact that you use a single number by itself should be a dead giveaway to that this is meaningless. Intelligence has many different dimensions, such as spatial analysis, analytical skills, reasoning, interpersonal communication, and creativity. Just about every certifiable genius doesn’t do very well on one or more of these.
Not really sure how you come up with the 110 figure, when Louis Terman, the designer of the Stanford-Binet test, put Jews at 125. Indeed, that result was so striking that he discussed it in the work that introduced the SB.
125 is ludicrous. 110 was reported by richard Lynn & the NLSY sample discussed in The Bell Curve gave similar results
I’m not saying this because I’m of Mexican ancestry, but just from observation by someone ( myself ) IQ of 118, it seems to me that Mexican people are far more intelligent than anyone else I’ve observed, they only score lower than the highest IQs because of poor education and IQ tests are not a good test for intelligence!
I wouldn’t go that far but i agree the indigenous peoples of the Americas are the most underrated intellects on Earth
mexico is a heterogeneous country. it has unmixed europeans (about 9%), mestizos of various levels of admixture, and lots of unmixed native americans, lots of whom still speak their amerindian language.
Most of these comments are filled with racism and antisemitism. Which makes them all nonsense and full of an agenda . It’s insulting to think for one second we value your opinion when it’s bathed in racist tone or even direct racism. JS is clearly a antisemitic so your thoughts are meaningless in this arena or any because u are lost . Any jew can see through you since they have delt with this nonsense for thousands of years and you are just another . As for the article . It’s nonsense too . 1 it’s based on a city not a race . 2 to compare horse racing and there physical ability to intellect of the Jews or any people is nonsense. You can clearly see that in all of man kind there is no ceiling to intellect. What matters is if your are objective and true to the laws of nature and science and rid yourself of all selfish thoughts and strive to find the truth .
Do you think that the genes in singaporean chinese are different to that of chinese.
A few comments here:
As far as I know, there has never been any set of circumstances, natural or artificial, which imposed long-term directional selection for extremely high intelligence on a large human population. Even the severest rigors of the last ice age were probably only selecting for an IQ of about 80 at most, and that selection would have mainly been for spatial IQ, other mental abilities only incidentally hitchhiking with it. The people then needed to build huts, master the fire, and sew warm clothes, but they didn’t need to solve electromagnetic field equations or write Macbeth. Ashkenazi Jews, according to Gregory Cochran’s “Natural History of Azkhenazi Intelligence” paper, were pigeonholed into jobs that required an IQ of about 100. A higher IQ beyond that undoubtedly offered an advantage, but it wouldn’t have necessarily chopped you off the evolutionary tree.
Thoroughbred horse racing ability isn’t a copacetic example to use here because it pertains to a wall which no individuals have surmounted, rather than an upper bound on group averages. A top racehorse is, by my limited familiarity with horse racing, the culmination of many generations of intense selection on a single trait. As I mentioned at the start of the previous paragraph, nothing analogous has ever been done for human intelligence, and I suspect that groups could reach summits far in excess of a pedestrian 114 if selection pressure demanded it. Furthermore, given the huge variability in IQ even among current human groups, our current genome could feasibly have enough untapped potential to raise a group’s average IQ above the level of even the most intelligent currently living individuals with mere reshuffling and pruning of the genome, no genetic engineering or novel mutations needed.
Regarding the risks of further improvement of average genetic intelligence, I should like to point out that the genes for Ashkenazi heritage diseases are far from ubiquitous: “About 1 out of 4 people of Ashkenazi Jewish heritage is a carrier of one of these genetic conditions” [1]. I’m not going to bother with researching and presenting all the details here, but the point is that these “Jewish IQ diseases” almost certainly aren’t the sole cause of high Ashkenazi IQ if 75% of Askhenazis don’t have any. Evolution must have stumbled on other, harmless mutations which increase intelligence, in addition to the pathogenic ones. So, nasty diseases like Tay-Sachs and Niemann-Pick probably aren’t a sine qua non for boosting IQ, but evolution prefers the laziest approach.
So, no, I highly doubt that, “Mongoloids are humanity’s final draft.” They’re more like a slightly improved draft for an assignment that got canceled. The arch of evolution only bends towards perfection when intense pressure forces it in that direction. Otherwise, it usually continues in a straight line at best.
[1] https://www.uofmhealth.org/health-library/tv7879
Afaict you need a group average IQ of at least 90 to have any sort of functioning civilization.
Yeah, the physical skills needed to adapt to the cold weren’t that demanding, but the organizational requirements were.
Define “functioning civilization”
One that an average American could tolerate for a few months or so. Decent infrastructure, doctors who won’t kill you, basic respect for the law, etc. Maybe I should’ve said “advanced civilization”
the lower bound is somewhere around pre-Chavez Venezuela.
The average IQ needed for a small and hated minority group to carve out a white collar niche for itself is higher than 100 for the same reason.