From about 1917 to 2006, large representative samples of American black adults have scored about one standard deviation below American white adults on the type of verbal and performance IQ tests first created for screening WWI recruits, and later borrowed by David Wechsler to use in his wildly popular scales; considered the gold standard in the field.
Although the black-white test score gap has shrunk somewhat on more scholastic tests where it used to be absurdly high, the longevity and consistency of the gap on the most conventional and respected of official IQ tests has led some to conclude that it is mostly or entirely genetic.
The single most powerful piece of supporting evidence for the genetic hypothesis is the Minnesota Transracial adoption study in which white, black and mixed-race kids were raised from early childhood in white upper-class homes. Although the adopted white and black kids scored well above the national white and black means (corrected for outdated norms) of about 102 and 86 respectively (U.S. norms) in childhood (though not at 17), large racial IQ gaps were found among the adopted kids at both ages.
However the study had a problem, as explained by its authors Scarr and Weinberg (1976):
It is essential to note, however, that the groups also differed significantly (p < .05) in their placement histories and natural mother’s education. Children with two black parents were significantly older at adoption, had been in the adoptive home a shorter time, and had experienced a greater number of preadoption placements. The natural parents of the black/black group also averaged a year less of education than those of the black/white group, which suggests an average difference between the groups in intellectual ability. There were also significant differences between the adoptive families of black/black and black/white children in father’s education and mother’s IQ.[1]
Because the children with two black biological parents were adopted later than the children with only one black biological parent, it’s best to exclude them from our analysis and focus only the IQ gap between the adopted kids with two white biological parents and those with one black and one white biological parent. Not only were both these groups adopted early into white upper-class homes, but since both had white biological mothers, both enjoyed the benefits of a white prenatal environment. What the study found was that by age seven, the fully white kids average IQ 111.5 and the half-black kids averaged 105.4, a difference of 6.1 points (see chart above).
This difference may sound small, but keep in mind that we are not comparing full-blooded blacks to full-blooded whites, we are comparing half-African Americans to full-blooded whites. Also keep in mind that because everyone is being raised in the same social class, and social class independently explains such a large percent of the IQ variance at age seven, the entire IQ scale becomes compressed, so instead of the white standard deviation being about 14.5 (U.S. norms), it is only 11.3 in these adopted white kids. Thus a 6.1 point gap should be thought of as a 0.54 SD gap since 6.1/11.3 = 0.54.
So if kids with one black parent score 0.54 SD below white kids when both are raised in upper class homes and both have white prenatal environments, that 0.54 SD gap is arguably 100% genetic. And if having one black parent causes a 0.54 SD genetic drop in IQ, then having two black parents should cause a 1.08 SD genetic drop in IQ (note that the national black-white IQ gap in adults has been about 1 SD since WWI).
Failure to replicate
Now before HBDers get too excited, one should remember that the Minnesota transracial adoption study has never been replicated and that three other similar studies failed to find much of any black < white IQ gap, with some even showing the opposite pattern.
Tizard (1974) compared black, white and mixed-race kids raised in English residential nurseries and found that the only significant IQ difference favored the non-white kids. A problem with this study is that the children were extremely young (below age 5) and racial differences in maturation rates favor black kids. A bigger problem with this study is that the parents of the black kids appeared to be immigrants (African or West Indian) and immigrants are often hyper-selected for IQ (see Indian Americans).
A second study by Eyferth (1961) found that the biological illegitimate children of white German women had a mean IQ of 97.2 if the biological father was a white soldier and 96.5 if the biological father was a black soldier (a trivial difference). Both the white and mixed kids were raised by their biological white mothers. One problem with this study is that the biological fathers of both races would have been screened to have similar IQs because at the time, only the highest scoring 97% of whites and highest scoring 70% of blacks passed the Army General Classification Test and were allowed to be U.S. soldiers. In addition, 20% to 25% of the “black fathers” were not African-American or even black Africans, but rather French North Africans (dark caucasoids as we define them here).
A third study by Moore (1986) included a section where he looked at sub-samples of children adopted by white parents. He found that nine adopted kids with two black biological parents averaged 2 IQ points higher than 14 adopted kids with only one biological black parent. A 2 point IQ gap sounds small, but as I mentioned above, the IQ scale is compressed in kids when everyone is raised in the same social class (which might have been the case in this study), so a 2 point gap becomes 0.18 of the compressed white SD.
The results of this study suggest that half-white kids are 0.18 SD genetically duller than black kids, which predicts that fully white kids are 0.36 SD genetically duller than black kids. One problem with this study is that the black kids would have had black prenatal environments while many, or all, of the half-white kids would have had white prenatal environments, but given the low birth weight of black babies, if anything this suggests the genetic IQ gap favoring blacks is even larger than 0.36 SD!
Conclusion
We have two quality studies: The Minnesota Transracial adoption study (when black kids are excluded because of confounds) and Moore (1986). The first study implies U.S. black genes reduce IQ by 1.04 SD in kids (-1.04 SD), while the second implies U.S. black genes increase IQ by 0.36 SD in kids (+0.36 SD). But the first analysis was based on comparing 55 mixed kids to 16 white kids (total n = 71), while the second analysis was based on comparing nine black kids with 14 mixed kids (total n = 23). The total n of both studies combined is 94, so the first study provided 76% of the total sample while the second study provided 24%, thus the best I can do is just weigh these two conflicting results by sample size:
Effect of black genes on childhood IQ = 0.76(-1.04 SD) + 0.24(+0.36 SD)
Effect of black genes on childhood IQ = -0.79 SD + 0.09
Effect of black genes on childhood IQ = -0.7 SD
What this suggests is that on a scale where the white genetic IQ is set at 100 with an SD of 15, the U.S. black genetic IQ is 90, at least in childhood (in adulthood it may be around 85 since some IQ genes might not exert influence until post-puberty). This is consistent with the fact that despite half a century of affirmative action, the average black IQ (when expressed with reference to white norms) remains below 90 in both children and adults (see charts below).
On the other hand, my estimate is based on only two studies with a combined sample of only 71 adopted kids and we can only assume (based on education when known) that the IQs of their biological parents are roughly racially representative. And although the black-white IQ gap in adults has apparently changed not at all since WWI, the environmental gap might not have changed that much either. Despite decades of affirmative action, the median wealth for white families in 2013 was around $141,900, compared to Hispanics at about $13,700 and blacks at about $11,000 so even in the age of a black President, environmental factors can’t be ruled out.
Appendix
Black white IQ gap in the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children in the nationally representative samples used to norm each edition:
| white iq (u.s. norms) | black iq (u.s. norms) | white iq (white norms) | black iq (white norms) | black-white iq gap (u.s. norms) | black-white iq gap (white norms) | |
| wisc-r (1972) | 102.3 (sd = 14.08) | 86.4 (sd = 12.63) | 100 (sd = 15) | 83 (sd = 13.46) | 15.9 | 17 |
| wisc-iii (1989) | 103.5 (sd = 13.86) | 88.6 (sd = 12.83) | 100 (sd = 15) | 84 (sd = 13.89) | 14.9 | 16 |
| wisc-iv (2002) | 103.2 (sd = 14.52) | 91.7 (sd = 15.73) | 100 (sd = 15) | 88 (sd = 16.25) | 11.5 | 12 |
| wisc-v (2013) | 103.5 (sd = 14.6) | 91.9 (sd = 13.3) | 100 (sd = 15) | 88 (sd = 13.66) | 11.6 | 12 |
Black white IQ gap in the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale in the nationally representative samples used to norm each edition:
| white iq (u.s. norms) | black iq (u.s. norms) | white iq (white norms) | black iq (white norms) | black-white iq gap (u.s. norms) | black-white iqgap (white norms) | |
| wais-r (1978) | 101.4 (sd = 14.65) | 86.8 (sd = 13.14) | 100 (sd = 15) | 85 (sd = 13.45) | 14.6 | 15 |
| wais-iii (1995) | 102.6 (sd = 14.81) | 89.1 (sd = 13.31) | 100 (sd = 15) | 86 (sd = 13.48) | 13.5 | 14 |
| wais-iv (2006) | 103.4 (sd = 14) | 87.7 (sd = 14.4) | 100 (sd = 15) | 83 (sd = 15.43) | 15.7 | 17 |
Sources for charts:
WISC-R, WISC-III, and WISC-IV U.S. norms, from pg 27 (Table A1) of Black Americans Reduce the Racial IQ Gap: Evidence from Standardization Samples by William T. Dickens & James R. Flynn
WAIS-IV U.S. norms from pg 190 of WAIS-IV, WMS-IV, and ACS: Advanced Clinical Interpretation edited by James A. Holdnack, Lisa Drozdick, Lawrence G. Weiss, Grant L. Iverson
WISC-V U.S. norms from page 157, table 5.3 of WISC-V Assessment and Interpretation: Scientist-Practitioner Perspectives By Lawrence G. Weiss, Donald H. Saklofske, James A. Holdnack, Aurelio Prifitera
Pumpkin Person 
I can’t even keep up with what you guys talk about anymore. I just have a few words of advice. Invest stocks in Comcast! COM CAST
“I just have a few words of advice. Invest stocks in Comcast! COM CAST”
Lol, are you sure TV is the next big thing ? Are you forecasting a spike in unemployment or something like that ?
mickey just had a child with his mother.
Comcast owns illumination Studios which creates the Despicable Me animated movie franchise, that’s grossed billions of dollars in the last 6 years. The yellow “Minions” you see everywhere in Walmart are owned by Comcast, there stock has been skyrocketing ever since Despicable Me came out in 2010. They have other movies too, all hits, expect Comcast stocks to rise this Christmas when Sing, illumination studios new movie comes out, and again in 2017 with Despicable Me 3.
this finnish study…read it for yourself. see if you agree.
this is fine…in order to “normalize” the data the log of income is used rather than income…that is, it’s assumed the income data is approximately lognormal.
but then table 2 shows that there’s ZERO difference in the stdevs of MZTs and DZTs for log of income…and this is income summed from 1990 to 2004.
the increase in h^2 from MZTs to DZTs is bases SOLELY on an “age adjusted” income.
in other words…it appears this study shows the opposite of what its authors claim…income is not heritable at all…in finland…for both genders.
or rather…
…h^2 != 0 is based SOLELY on…
derp.
i’ve confused the variance in the difference between twins with the variance for the twins as a whole…
i assumed that the variance for the twins as a whole would not be reported as it’s irrelevant.
In the ACE model it is required that the correlation of lifetime income within the MZ twin pairs, r MZ , should be bigger than that of the DZ twin pairs, r DZ , and 2 r DZ should be at least as big as r MZ . For men r DZ is so low that the latter condition does not hold.
odd.
Illumination Studios is owned by universal NBC which is owned by Comcast
I’m just trying to help you guys look at Comcast’s stock chart on google if you don’t believe. Either way it’s your loss. I’m sure people that have seen me on this blog for awhile will at least look into it (pumpkin, Santo, race realist)
What are you, a broker?
I’m an investor, my broker is TD Ameritrade. I’m just a friendly guy trying to give back to the community that helped my child be created. My daughter will be born in 2.5 months partly because of this blog.
Please read this, its very important to your financial health.
Lars Kroijer, CFA
Obviously, you have an edge over the other market participants, but instead of a faceless mass, think about who they actually are and what knowledge they have and what analyses they undertake.
Imagine the portfolio manager of a technology-focused fund for a highly rated mutual fund/unit trust, who, like us, is looking at Microsoft. Let’s call the fund Ability Tech and the fund manager Susan.
Susan and Ability Tech have easy access to all the research that is written about Microsoft, including the 80-page in-depth reports by research analysts from all the major banks — such as Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs — that have followed Microsoft and all its competitors since Bill Gates started the business.
The analysts know all of the business lines of Microsoft, down to the programmers who write the code and the marketing groups that come up with the great ads. They may have worked at Microsoft or its competitors and perhaps went to Harvard or Stanford with senior members of the management team.
On top of that, the analysts speak frequently with the trading groups of their banks, who are among the market leaders in the trading of Microsoft shares and can see market moves faster and more accurately than almost any trader.
All research analysts talk to Susan regularly and at great length because of the commissions Ability’s trading generates. Microsoft is a big position for Ability, and Susan reads all the reports thoroughly. It’s important to know what the market thinks. Susan enjoys the technical product development aspects of Microsoft, and she feels she talks the same language as the techies, partly because she knew some of them from when she studied computer science at MIT. But Susan’s somewhat “nerdy” demeanour is balanced out by her “gut feel” colleague, who sees bigger-picture trends in the technology sector and specifically sees how Microsoft is perceived in the market and its ability to respond to a changing business environment.
Susan and her colleagues frequently go to IT conferences and have meetings with senior people from Microsoft and peer companies, and they are on a first-name basis with most of them. Microsoft arranged for Ability to visit the senior management at offices around the world, both in sales and development, and Susan also talked to some of the leading clients.
Like the research analysts from the banks, Ability has an army of expert PhDs who study sales trends and spot new potential challenges (they were among the first to spot Facebook and Google). Furthermore, Ability has economists who study the US and global financial systems in detail because the world economy will affect the performance of Microsoft. Ability also has mathematicians with trading-pattern recognition technology to help with the analysis.
Susan loves reading books about technology and every finance/investing book she can get her hands on, including all the Warren Buffett and value investor books.
Susan knows everything there is to know about the stocks she follows (including a few things she probably shouldn’t know, which she keeps close to her chest), some of which are much smaller and less well researched than Microsoft. She has one of the best ratings among fund managers on a couple of the comparison sites but doesn’t pay too much attention to that. After doing this for more than 20 years, she knows how quickly things can change and instead focuses on remaining at the top of her game.
Do You Have an Edge Over Susan?
Do you think you have an edge over Susan and the thousands of people like her? If you do, you might be brilliant, arrogant, the next Warren Buffett or George Soros, lucky, or all of the above.
If you don’t, you don’t have an edge. Most people don’t. Most people are better off admitting to themselves that once a company is listed on an exchange and has a market price, they are better off assuming that this price reflects the stock’s true value, incorporating a future positive return for the stock but also a risk that things don’t go as planned.
My advice is…unless your uncle is working on Comcast’s board, or you have some other edge as a key supplier to Comcast or even if you’re the fucking janitor and you overhear what the CEOs calls are, you don’t have an edge on a massive public corporation like Comcast. You will go broke betting against Susan.
The last bolded paragraph is me, not Lars.
And for the love of god, close down your Ameritrade, and dump everything into an S&P ETF – and use a tax wrapper like a pension,college savings a/c or 401k. Then focus on making money in your work/business instead.
You have to be trolling.
So you are spreading the world so that your stock’s value increases and you can make good money from it ? Am I wrong ?
I’m dead serious.
Lars Kroijer is a genius.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lars_Kroijer
He is literally telling you what the people you are betting against know and do.
I have no doubt that, the mans a genius. That doesn’t mean I cant become 1/10 as successful as he is, with my limited IQ
Maybe you worded what you were trying to say wrong.
But you don’t need a high IQ to listen to his advice!!!!!!!
Its not about IQ. If Lars was an engineer, doctor, or software developer he would have no businesses picking stocks in the evenings in his home after work. He won’t know anything Susan doesn’t know. Especially for a public company like Comcast where there are probably 2000 Susans with magnifying glass on Comcast.
Even if you strike it lucky with Comcast, you will almost certainly lose out over the next 10 picks, even just based on broker fees and taxes alone.
1st I was just using an example. 2nd there could be thousands of susans with magnify-ing glasses. 3rd Comcast is still a family owned business (look it up family owns majority stock) 4th. I never pay for the broker fees myself;I always get the money from a friend or family member. 5th I’ve already made money from Fed Ex and a small flower company. 6th and finally, do you even stock bro?
You are a car crash. Yes – ETFs. You will look back in 5 years and say, ‘I should have followed Phil’s advice’….if you can properly calculate your return!
philosophaster is wrong.
as long as one:
1. knows how to diversify
2. spends very little on commissions
his results should be no worse than that of the pros on average, and he’ll end up spending even less than he would on an index fund if he buys and holds for a long time. but very few know how to diversify efficiently.
and the philosophaster forgets that small stocks are not researched by the pros. they’re too small to make any difference to their portfolios.
he’s also wrong to insist on index funds alone. some CEFs (investment trusts) have such large discounts to their NAVs that their expense ratios adjusted for this turn out to be NEGATIVE…the investor is paid to own the fund! bond CEFs also allow leverage in a retirement account.
but he is right that the pros have superior information and analytic capacity. they pay for it.
the less money is actively managed the better actively managed money does. now pension funds and endowments are 60% passive. individual retirement accounts are only about 25% passive…it’s a huge rip-off. but 95% passive would result in an absurdly inefficient market.
my returns in the local currencies for the stocks i bought in september…a tiny part of my portfolio… unfortunately…these are just price returns…the total returns would be a little higher for a few of them.
BEEP, Stock, SMART, GBP 10.88% eastern europe
CABK, Stock, SMART, EUR 30.65% spanish bank
CWB, Stock, SMART, CAD 17.07% canadian bank
DNB, Stock, OSE, NOK 37.39% norwegian bank
ISP, Stock, SMART, EUR 22.04% italian bank
NDASEK, Stock, SFB, SEK 19.68% swedish bank
SHB.A, Stock, SFB, SEK 26.28% swedish bank
SWED.A, Stock, SFB, SEK 13.13% swedish bank
GAS, Stock, SMART, EUR -9.25% spanish utility
what makes you think that I don’t already have money? Stocks are more profitable than any other investment. I make enough money to were I don’t have any risk. If i wanted to i could just put 60 grand in a 10% annual dividend companies stock, reinvest my dividends every year and be a retired millionaire at 51. Although I know I’m capable of much more than that.
So you are spreading the world so that your stock’s value increases and you can make good money from it ? Am I wrong ?
you are wrong, although I did convince my friend Andrew to invest $600 into Comcast yesterday. It didnt take any effort to convince him since he trusts me as I’m a close friend.
I don’t think you get finance. If a public company is offering a 10% dividend, let’s say X, the price you buy that stock at might be 20X rather than a company offering no dividend trading at say 10X.
You will pay more for the dividend than its worth.
The price already takes into account the expected dividend.
Depending on its dividend history and risk profile, professionals will expect to reinvest the 10% as well for many years and discount to reflect the price today accordingly.
Discounted Cash Flow Analysis.
Its not like nobody except you has seen that angle.
that’s not true at all, that’s false. The price of the stock is whatever it is at the point in time you buy on the market. If the stock is 30 bucks a share. I buy 1,000 dollars worth of shares, and that companies dividend is 10%. At the end of the year I get 10% back of whatever is in my account. So year 1 I get $1,100 year 2 I get $1,210 etc
If you can find a stock at $100:$10 dividend, that’s not tanking I’ll give you the money myself.
I’ve always assumed most stock picking advice was stupid. No offense intended, though. My dad has tried to get me to invest in stocks for years. Then I tried to explain the Efficient Market Hypothesis to him but he’s still pressuring me.
Buying and holding makes sense, but not trying to time the market. That’s ridiculous.
We will not capitulate.
I remember when I was young in school and they would discuss Hitler and they would say: mass psychosis or delusion.
And you know, many of the older Germans until they died off in the 80s and 90s, still stuck with the beliefs.
silly.
the problem of one ethnic group with outsized power is exactly that this anti-democratic.
genuine democracy is quite radical. beyond der fuhrer’s grasp i guess.
what’s the effect of the adjustment idk. the unadjusted correlation isn’t given afaict.
but a study cited in the article gives 20 years earnings for swedish men has an h^2 of .63, for women .48.
whereas a study from the US gives log of annual income an h^2 of .28 for both genders.
a study from australia gives h^2 of .08 for men and another of .68 for both genders for “average occupational income”. the same country, the same measure, two wildly different results.
whatever.
i guess you have to be a specialist to figure out what’s crap and what’s gold.
A list of Posts of great posts Pumpkin has made because of me. These are some of my contributions to the community. May you all reach enlightenment.
https://pumpkinperson.com/2016/05/27/is-there-a-secret-black-underclass/
https://pumpkinperson.com/2016/05/31/the-iq-of-precious/
https://pumpkinperson.com/2016/06/25/brexit-ethnic-genetic-interests/
https://pumpkinperson.com/2016/06/14/brain-size-ethnic-genetic-interests-at-70th-annual-tony-awards/
all these years and my spelling is still shit.
Well, I beat you because I think I’m responsible for this post which I believe is PP’s biggest hit in terms of comments.
I think it is too. I damn near shit my pants when I saw the comment number.
“I damn near shit my pants”
Classy…
We focus on schooling for three reasons: First,
schooling is known to depend on genetic endowments (Behrman and Taubman
1989, Miller et al. 2001) and is hence a potential driver of the heritability of life-
time income. Second, schooling is in general thought to be a driving force behind
(increases in) income inequality (e.g. Acemoglu and Autor 2011). 5 Third, the re-
cent evidence suggests that major schooling reforms have enhanced intergenera-
tional earnings mobility.
In similar vein,
Pekkarinen, Uusitalo and Pekkala Kerr (2009), using income data from 1995-2000
for sons born 1960-1966, report that the intergenerational income elasticity for
Finnish fathers and sons decreased from 0.30 to 0.23 because of a comprehensive
schooling reform. Pekkarinen et al. hypothesize that the schooling reform benefit-
ed predominantly students from poorer families.
The individuals in our data effectively constituted the last cohort that ob-
tained their primary and secondary schooling in the old, more selective, Finnish
school system.
what does “more selective” mean?
later these authors try to explain how it can be that a change in the education system and income mobility is consistent with their results.
it’s beyond them that income may be just as heritable…but for different reasons.
this is also beyond the capacity of shoe, murray, and cockring.
the bottom line:
high heritability for this or that within a given environment does not mean that changes in the environment will have little effect on the phenotype.
heritability for psychological traits is never that high.
the genes responsible for the heritability depend on the environment.
imagine:
the phenotype distribution is unchanged.
the environment changes.
the heritability of the phenotype is unchanged.
shoe, murray, and cockiring conclude…erroneously…this is because the same genes are at work. no!
Hey I’m not gunna pretend that i’m a higher class than what I am.
No offence, there is far worse language than this on here anyway.
I know, none taking. Its gotten worse.
It’s more polished since santoculto’s gone a couple of days ago.
he’ll be back
But I’ll be gone, I’m back to work on Tuesday.
*taken
I’d like to apologize to Mugabe, Philosopher, Santo, JS and everyone else I insulted.
you really are a genius.
Are you mocking me?
I shouldn’t have called you guys “losers” over and over again. That was very mean of me. I shouldn’t have made the countless small penis jokes. I’ve just acted like a mean bitch and a bimbo and that’s now who I am. I mean deep down I’m a good person, not “such a nasty woman” as Mugabe wrote, citing Trump. I got too emotional over racist comments against Indigenous people…
A woman on this blog? are pigs flying?
Well, you people didn’t think I was right from just the picture….
Bipolar.
I’m out of your league dude. I wouldn’t even look in your direction irl.
“Sperm trashcan for winners like me…”
You’re hideous and a schizophrenic to boot.
I’ve realized that I can’t be nice to a retarded douchebag who calls me a “sperm urinal”. I have to draw the line somewhere.
why are you obsessed with oprah?
btw i wouldn’t be surprised at a fairly strong heritability of income.
In the ADE-model, the narrow sense heritability…is 7%…The broad heritability…is
54% for men.
bad model.
The AE models suggest that the estimate of h 2 is 45% for males, but based on the AIC criterion the ADE model is preferred.
whatever.
The results of these authors suggest that changing the Swedish and Finnish educational systems from selective to comprehensive enhanced intergenerational mobility and benefited especially high ability students with poor parents…
interesting, because the british claim the exact opposite effect with their comprehensives.
First, we add each individual’s education (i.e., schooling in years) to the
ACE, AE and ADE models as a new R.H.S. variable…
that’s dumb.
We produce this estimated effect by first estimating a within-twin-differenced model using only MZ twins with the age-adjusted (log) lifetime income as the dependent variable and including only years of education as an explanatory variable…This approach accounts for the endogeneity of schooling with the shared envi-ronment and genetic traits.
i doubt they do. restriction of range?
Well, this article has only two citations according to google scholar, so it might not be so interesting after all.
18 comments left till we hit the 1000 bar.
affirmative action.
I’m late to this conversation but I wanted to point out that Afrosapiens is one of the most impressive Black thinkers I’ve encountered. Even though I don’t agree with anything he says, and he tries to win debates by quibbling over minor points…
Thank you, but there is no such thing as minor points. If you are slightly wrong because of minor flaws in your theory, you are wrong and your theory is flawed.
I’m late to this conversation but I wanted to point out that Afrosapiens is one of the most impressive Black thinkers I’ve encountered. Even though I don’t agree with anything he says, and he tries to win debates by quibbling over minor points…
The two of you are very similar in that you both scored incredibly high on scholastic achievement exams in your respective countries, though you both may regress somewhat to the black mean on g. Afrosapiens might regress a lot more since there’s such a huge gap between his parents and his genetic parents. By contrast ruhkukah was raised by his genetic parents in a very humble part of America.
“though you both may regress somewhat to the black mean on g”
I think I’ve been constant enough during all of my schooling for my test scores to be just statistical artifact.
I understand why you would regress to the mean black level of g if you believe in a significant environmental component to IQ, but I still simply don’t think a large environmental component exists, even with the evidence you’ve laid out.
Additionally, regression to the mean usually implies regressing to the mean of your biological grandparents’/parents’ IQ. And I think my grandparents have pretty high g (three out of four were college grads), so I don’t think my IQ would regress that much (if my train of logic makes sense???)
I understand why you would regress to the mean black level of g if you believe in a significant environmental component to IQ, but I still simply don’t think a large environmental component exists, even with the evidence you’ve laid out.
The point is if the tests you and Afrosapiens scored so high on were not strong measures of g, then my best guess for your true levels of g would be in between your race and your scores, if that’s all I knew about you.
Additionally, regression to the mean usually implies regressing to the mean of your biological grandparents’/parents’ IQ. And I think my grandparents have pretty high g (three out of four were college grads), so I don’t think my IQ would regress that much (if my train of logic makes sense???)
It makes perfect sense. If all I know about you is you’re human, I would regress your score to the human mean. But if I know more, that you’re American, I would regress your score to the American mean. If I know still more, that you’re an African American, I would regress your score to the African American mean. If I know even more still, that you come from a smart African American family, I would regress your score to the mean of smart African American families, etc.
But at some point, more information yields diminishing returns. That is the more specific the group I regress you to, the lower the correlation because of range restriction, which means you do MORE regressing but to a higher mean, which isn’t much different from less regressing to a lower mean.
In the case of Afrosapiens, one might regress his score to the mean of elite black law grads.
“if my train of logic makes sense”
It doesn’t make sense, regression to the mean is not about genetics, regression to the mean is a statistical concept that describes the fact that randomly picking small samples increases the chances of picking unrepresentative extremes. It’s only when you enlarge your sample that it becomes more representative and therefore regresses or progresses to the mean.
In my case, I’ve skipped a grade, been a top student all of my school years and graduated from Europe’s top business school. There has been no regression to any mean at all, my achievement tests have been constantly above-average.
If all I did is due to genes (which I don’t believe) my children will score somewhere halfway between me and my fiancé’s score, not halfway between the Haïtian and Moroccan Jew mean, because genes are inherited from parents, not from groups.
Except per the breeder’s equation, one does regress to the mean of one’s last two generations due to the decrease in probability of genes combining in a favorable way. So regression doesn’t just refer to a person taking several IQ tests, but to genes combining across generations, also.
The breeder’s equation is just using the parent-child phenotype correlation to predict the phenotype in the next generation of selected parents. The correlation is reasonably assumed to be genetic in that context because breeders have great control over the environments of their animals.
If all I did is due to genes (which I don’t believe) my children will score somewhere halfway between me and my fiancé’s score, not halfway between the Haïtian and Moroccan Jew mean, because genes are inherited from parents, not from groups.
I think this is true except you have to look at the last 2 generations.
“I think this is true except you have to look at the last 2 generations.”
No such thing has ever been empirically demonstrated when it comes to IQ.
IQ or school achievement.
“In the case of Afrosapiens, one might regress his score to the mean of elite black law grads.”
Why, I wasn’t raised in an African or Caribbean culture, France doesn’t have affirmative action laws, so unless you apply regression to the mean on genetic grounds, there is no reason to depress my score to another mean but that of French people who had the same degree from the same category of schools.
If France doesn’t have affirmative action, then you should have been the only black in any of your elite classes. Were you?
No. There weren’t lots of blacks in my classes but I wasn’t the only one, I’d say 10/380, some born or raised in France, other were Africans. But we’re at most 5% of France’s population.
So 2.6% were black. Assuming only half (1.3%) were French blacks, that’s still a lot for a country where only 5% are black. It implies either informal affirmative action and/or the black-white IQ gap is small in France and/or the entrance exam is not that g loaded
How many Jews?
And you PP, what’s your Alma Mater ? And what degree have you got ? I’m not saying it in an aggressive way but since we’ve been talking about me…
I got an honours bachelor’s degree in a non-STEM field from the 4th best university in Canada.
I don’t think you’d threaten your confidentiality by being more precise.
My degree was in the social sciences.
Alright, that doesn’t seem much g loaded lol. I think it’s psychology since you haven’t shown much expertise on other subjects. Now I’m going to sleep, I have to wake up early tomorrow.
There were many Jews, in fact nearly all the North African were Jew. But one thing you must understand is that graduating from such a school is extremely expensive, and people who are not in the top 2% or 3% of the wealth distribution can’t afford it. Firstly it costs around €20,000 per year, it is unusual in France to pay for college. Secondly, from the time you enter prep school to the time you graduate, you can’t have a job to pay for your expense. Third, that’s not about money itself but the atmosphere on the campus must be extremely unwelcoming to middle or lower class students for a lot of reasons that I won’t mention here.
“It implies either informal affirmative action”
It’s impossible, No one knows your race before the oral exams which are only open to the first 700 applicants to the oral exam. And anyway, almost 100% of students graduate and HEC remains the first business school in Europe each year.
so here’s the new conspiracy theory philostomy bag…per afro…oprah’s illegitimate child.
wage stagnation, increasing inequality, capital’s increasing share of income, the hypertrophy of the finance sector, etc. is actually a socialist plot…
how can that be?
because once the inequality becomes too great the tax rates will be raised to the roof ala hollande before he sold out or 1980s norway.
or maybe the last 40 years is just hegelian…the capitalists take too much and what they get in the end is much less…no conspiracy.
the rich can pay for the welfare state and will resent it less than the middle class.
ergo…
in order to maintain the welfare state the rich must be made even richer and everyone else settle for what they have.
“in order to maintain the welfare state the rich must be made even richer and everyone else settle for what they have.”
That sounds good.
#Cucklogic.
It only works if you can collect taxes from the rich once you concentrate wealth like that…..
Which requires violence in the end.
“in order to maintain the welfare state the rich must be made even richer and everyone else settle for what they have.”
In fact, what makes the most of the difference is that the rich understand that taxes are the price of civilization, whereas the middle class and the nouveaux riches see it as unjust extortion. The French middle class remains globally favorable to taxes and the welfare state though.
wordsum isn’t the best IQ test obviously, but these facts are significant.
1. there is a fairly strong correlation between wordsum and income. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/files/2012/06/webpreview_htm_3c17b2ac.jpg
2. this correlation disappears for graduates…restriction of range perhaps?
2. this correlation disappears for graduates…restriction of range perhaps?
But Lion’s theory is not even internally consistent. On the one hand he says that going to an Ivy League school is much more important to getting rich than being smart, yet if the correlation between IQ and income is zero for people with a BA, then high IQ Harvard BAs would likely be no richer than average IQ state school BAs. I think the problem with his research is that education level itself is about as good a proxy for IQ as wordsum scores.
“But Lion’s theory is not even internally consistent. On the one hand he says that going to an Ivy League school is much more important to getting rich than being smart, yet if the correlation between IQ and income is zero for people with a BA, then high IQ Harvard BAs would likely be no richer than average IQ state school BAs. I think the problem with his research is that education level itself is about as good a proxy for IQ as wordsum scores.”
I don’t know what Lion’s theory actually is, but if I only take the part that says that going to an Ivy League college is more important to getting rich that being smart, he’s right. That’s in top schools that you make useful friends, and having useful friends is more important than being smart.
I don’t know what Lion’s theory actually is, but if I only take the part that says that going to an Ivy League college is more important to getting rich that being smart, he’s right. That’s in top schools that you make useful friends, and having useful friends is more important than being smart.
His theory goes further and argues that the ONLY reason high IQ people do well in their careers is because they went to good schools/got college degrees.
That’s certainly not the only reason. I think networking opportunities is what makes the difference between top colleges and good colleges. But a smarter, more combative graduate from a good college has just as many opportunities than a top college graduate who just expects to build on the prestige of their degrees, these guys become scholars and don’t make that much money.
You’re not using a dynamic model in your head.
A lot of people make the error to leave out the vector of time.
In the past whether you went to an Ivy or not didn’t matter as much as now. You are both right, but at different measurement periods. I would bet Lion’s hypo holds true for 20-35 yr olds and the ‘IQ can overcome signalling’ for older generations. In effect one needs to do 2 separate studies and reconcile them with the third vector of capital/wealth inequality explosion since the 1980s.
Listen to Carl Icahn….a lot of Ivybridge grads are idiots. Unz has conclusively shown that IQ is far from the only criteria to entering.
The number one being race. Being gentile white is like being a Sasquatch.
Lion’s a genius but he believes things to justify his perceived “failures” (which aren’t really failures by most people’s standards). Hence his belief that Ivy League education in and of itself leads to wealth/success.
Lion’s a genius but he believes things to justify his perceived “failures” (which aren’t really failures by most people’s standards). Hence his belief that Ivy League education in and of itself leads to wealth/success.
He’s very bright and all his wrong “beliefs” can be explained by his healthy ego and high ethnocentrism. I don’t think he believes everything he says btw.
I don’t think he believes everything he says btw
Interesting. In what other ways do you think Lion is covering for his real beliefs? I usually hate armchair psychoanalysis because it’s usually wrong, but I’m curious.
For instance, I just posted on Lion’s blog that he’s probably wrong on climate change/global warming. I think he knows the evidence is strongly against him, but at the same time, he seems to genuinely believe AGW is giant liberal conspiracy.
Interesting. In what other ways do you think Lion is covering for his real beliefs? I usually hate armchair psychoanalysis because it’s usually wrong, but I’m curious.
Anytime he goes on a tirade about Obama being a master manipulator secretly motivated by his Muslim heritage, pretending to care about America’s geopolitical interests, it’s like he’s projecting himself on to Obama, but substituting Muslim for Jewish. He’s constantly accusing Obama of being an evil Genius perhaps because he sees in Obama the same verbal sleight of hand he himself uses when recommending America’s middle east policy.
For instance, I just posted on Lion’s blog that he’s probably wrong on climate change/global warming. I think he knows the evidence is strongly against him, but at the same time, he seems to genuinely believe AGW is giant liberal conspiracy.
If Americans fear global warming they may break their addiction to middle eastern oil, and want nothing to do with the middle east. I think the Lion, at least on a subconscious level, fears this will leave Israel more isolated than ever and motivates him to debunk AGW.
Isn’t working for others prole? It seems like it. Although Lion doesn’t think so and he thinks highly of prestigious careerists and professionals working for others.
One thing that Lion never addresses: Lucrative careers, especially those in the legal, financial and also medical, require very thick skin and I mean thick skin to thrive.
The grass may not be greener on the other side, if you want a peace of mind. Jews on the other hand, are grandfathered in many of these areas, and are less subjugated to adversity.
Lion worked at a company dealing with dark caucasoids — which is less stressful than dealing with lower IQ groups like blacks who are too stupid to embrace any type of professionalism, and certainly a lot less stressful than dealing with mid IQ groups like White proles who are both cunning and violent, and also higher IQ groups like Jews and Elite Whites who are ambitious, rapacious, and conniving in very sophisticated ways.
PP: Mugaboo thinks New Yorkers want everything in a zoo. Well, it is a zoo, and its the quintessential zoo to observe HBD in full effect. There is no other place in the country or perhaps in the world where you get to see this so close.
In this article, people are wondering why blacks and Hispanics living in government housing for poor people in New York which are right next to multi-millionaire dollar apartments for White people do not benefit from the wealth effect:
https://nextcity.org/features/view/new-york-public-housing-authority-changes-gentrification
Well, there’s race and then there’s IQ. But most people are not HBD aware.
PP: Mugaboo thinks New Yorkers want everything in a zoo. Well, it is a zoo, and its the quintessential zoo to observe HBD in full effect. There is no other place in the country or perhaps in the world where you get to see this so close
What Marxist nationalists like of Mug of Pee don’t appreciate is that’s one great thing about multi-culturalism and America. You get to see all the races compete in a money hungry Darwinian battle of IQ and tribalism. America is an anthropologist’s wet dream. If only there were some pygmies, Bushmen, and Australian aboriginals to throw in the mix. I’m as opposed to globalism as most here, but I would like a few pockets of globalism remain, just to see how the different races compete for money and power in a single society.
Despite my disdain for America, and especially New York, it’s the greatest experiment of social darwinism, not only pertaining to class and education background, but also race.
“that’s one great thing about multi-culturalism and America. You get to see all the races compete in a money hungry Darwinian battle of IQ and tribalism.”
Ha. Ha. You must be joking.
You’ll also get to see them liquidate one another in time….
All part of the fun.
blacks don’t really compete with Whites, but Hispanics take away jobs from proles. No one really competes with Jews, although in NY, I’ve seen certain East Asian-owned shops displace Jewish ones. But this is a minor thing, given the fact that Jews are mostly entrenched in industries that don’t produce or sell anything tangible.
Most elites love lower IQ individuals as long as they don’t come too close to them. They love them, because they profit them, either as academic research subjects or minimum wage employees.
Mugabe is a Marxist?
Mugabe is a Marxist?
More or less.
i remember on the eve of bundy’s execution a psychologist said…
he should be kept alive so people like me can study him.
it was on ABC’s Nightline iirc.
wrong!
guys like bundy should have been shot without a trial.
hey philosopher, do you watch southpark?
autism isn’t a real illness:
Well its not an ‘illness’, but its real.
In fact I’d argue, autists suffer the least stress, mental instability and emotional turmoil of anyone on the spectrum.
Philospher’s autist checklist:
Do you wear jumper/rainjacket/hiking gear indoors?
Do you buy clothes for a cheap as price as possible no matter what it looks like?
Do you have an object or number fetish?
Are you mainly a-sexual/homosexual?
Do you rarely if ever go out on the weekends to party/club?
Do you feel that people should be more respectful?
Do you have an autist, savant or autists retardate relation?
Do you have little interest in literature, social sciences, and art?
Can you create original musical pieces?
Do you have a routine you like to stick to?
Do you prefer the small town to the big city?
Are most of your close friends omegas/autists?
Do you believe in political correctness and its benefits?
Do you think people only commit violence in the end due to bad parenting?
Can you lie?
Are you selfless?
Can you read body language and facial expressions?
Can you dance?
Has anyone ever said you were charismatic?
Do people say you have a stilted way of speaking like you learned to speak from an American instructor on an english language for new visa applicants learning tape, even though you are British?
Are you funny, purposefully?
Are you against racists?
Do you think countries are poor due to bad rules, not bad people?
Do you like animals more than people?
When reading Shakespeare or poetry in school did you find it stupid, boring and not understand why they can’t just say out what they mean?!
Do you have a soft voice?
Have you never been in a fight?
Do you inherently believe authority should be followed deep down?
Are you east asian?
Do you love video games and computers?
Are you bad at most sports, especially team sports?
I’d say anyone ticking 5-7 of these is on the spectrum. Anyone ticking 15-20 is an obvious autist. Anyone ticking 20+ is a savant like Rain Man autist.
That’s a pretty good check-list though I’d remove the questions about autistic relatives or east Asian ancestry because such check-lists are used to measure phenotype in heritability studies, so having heritability built into the phenotype becomes circular.
i assume philostomy bag checks all of them.
the philostomy bag isn’t smart enough not to employ psychiatry for ideological purposes.
thus he identifies himself as a schizo even though he’s yet to display any schizo behavior.
bottom line:
the jews control phil’s mind.
Mug of Pee’s method of estimating IQ is interesting. The more he agrees with you, the higher the IQ.
By Mug of Pee’s scale, the world’s highest IQ person would be a HBD denying anti-psychology anti-semetic anti-academia pro-Marxist pro-nationalist money saving lazy theist who believes there are too many lawyers
Violate anyone of his sacred cows & he becomes the verbal equivalent of Leatherface
“Do you wear jumper/rainjacket/hiking gear indoors?”
No.
“Do you buy clothes for a cheap as price as possible no matter what it looks like?”
Pretty much. I dress well though.
“Do you have an object or number fetish??”
No.
“Are you mainly a-sexual/homosexual?”
No.
“Do you rarely if ever go out on the weekends to party/club?”
Yup.
“Do you feel that people should be more respectful?”
Don’t really care what people do as long as I’m not affected physically.
“Do you have an autist, savant or autists retardate relation?”
No.
“Do you have little interest in literature, social sciences, and art?”
Social sciences are largely a joke. I can appreciated a nice work of art. Literature, meh I enjoy reading science books more.
“Can you create original musical pieces?”
Used to play one when I was younger. Was fun. Should go back to it. Never have done that though.
“Do you have a routine you like to stick to?”
Of course.
“Do you prefer the small town to the big city?”
Yup.
“Are most of your close friends omegas/autists?”
No.
“Do you believe in political correctness and its benefits?”
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/
“Do you think people only commit violence in the end due to bad parenting?”
It depends. Bad parenting (neglect and abuse) can activate the 2 r MAOA-L allele, which is associated with higher rates of crime.
But other than that, no.
Also, evolutionary psychologists say that men commit crime in order to have more possesions as a mating strategy to have more children. I can’t help but think this makes a ton of sense when put in that way.
“Can you lie?”
Of course.
“Are you selfless?”
Yea, for my family. I’d say 50/50.
“Can you read body language and facial expressions?”
Yes.
“Can you dance?”
No.
“Has anyone ever said you were charismatic?”
All the time.
“Do people say you have a stilted way of speaking like you learned to speak from an American instructor on an english language for new visa applicants learning tape, even though you are British?”
No.
“Are you funny, purposefully?”
Sometimes.
“Are you against racists?”
No.
“Do you think countries are poor due to bad rules, not bad people?”
No.
“Do you like animals more than people?”
My cat > you
“When reading Shakespeare or poetry in school did you find it stupid, boring and not understand why they can’t just say out what they mean?!”
No.
“Do you have a soft voice?”
No.
“Have you never been in a fight?”
Too many to count.
“Do you inherently believe authority should be followed deep down?”
Always ask questions.
“Are you east asian?”
No.
“Do you love video games and computers?”
No. I play from time to time though.
Oy vey, I got ten.
Most of those traits suit introverts as well though.
Hahaha crazy old Mugabe.
He reminds me I should do a schizo one.
I check 2. Realist, you score around 5 based on your responses, you’re fine. You never struck me as autist at all.
Its just a diagnostic for the layman pumpers to self diagnose rather than the academic/scientist for screening a sample.
Today, in my alma mater library I saw an East Asian man with a Super-Dry rainjacket on indoors, in the fucking library hahaha. I thought about my questionnaire.
And I’ve decided to add another item:
Poor personal grooming.
Do you wear jumper/rainjacket/hiking gear indoors? No
Do you buy clothes for a cheap as price as possible no matter what it looks like? No
Do you have an object or number fetish? No
Are you mainly a-sexual/homosexual? No
Do you rarely if ever go out on the weekends to party/club? Yes
Do you feel that people should be more respectful? Yes
Do you have an autist, savant or autists retardate relation? No
Do you have little interest in literature, social sciences, and art? No
Can you create original musical pieces? No
Do you have a routine you like to stick to? Yes
Do you prefer the small town to the big city? No
Are most of your close friends omegas/autists? No
Do you believe in political correctness and its benefits? No
Do you think people only commit violence in the end due to bad parenting? No
Can you lie? Yes
Are you selfless? No
Can you read body language and facial expressions? Yes
Can you dance? Yes
Has anyone ever said you were charismatic? Yes
Do people say you have a stilted way of speaking like you learned to speak from an American instructor on an english language for new visa applicants learning tape, even though you are British? That’s awfully specific. No.
Are you funny, purposefully? Yes
Are you against racists? Yes
Do you think countries are poor due to bad rules, not bad people? No
Do you like animals more than people? No
When reading Shakespeare or poetry in school did you find it stupid, boring and not understand why they can’t just say out what they mean?! No
Do you have a soft voice? high-pitched voice, yes.
Have you never been in a fight? No
Do you inherently believe authority should be followed deep down? No
Are you east asian? No
Do you love video games and computers? hate video games
Are you bad at most sports, especially team sports? Good at volleyball, bad at everything else
I’d say anyone ticking 5-7 of these is on the spectrum. Anyone ticking 15-20 is an obvious autist. Anyone ticking 20+ is a savant like Rain Man autist.
I can almost hear a few hearts on the thread fluttering at the sight of this beauty.
My old engineering buddy dressed like this walking around central London.
He also brought a rolling suitcase when coming down from up north, even though he had a hiking bag.
So another thing you might add to the list is extreme overpacking for holidays/trips.
I’m of two minds– on the one hand, I still believe there’s an autism/schizophrenia spectrum. On the other hand, the vast majority of people, even those high on the spectrum, have absolutely nothing wrong with them, in the same way an introvert has nothing wrong with them.
Only a very small percentage of people are so autistic/schizophrenic that there’s something grotesquely different and wrong in their neurological structure. And they belong in an entirely different category altogether than normal people on the spectrum. These extreme cases are probably caused by high genetic load, and de novo mutations, unlike normal people on the spectrum, who just have normal variation in autistic/schizo traits (perhaps described by a normal distribution).
blah blah blah…
there’s no such thing as half pregnant.
you’ve bought the continuum bullshit from the psychiatry salesmen.
yet what you see is not a continuum. you see kinds.
and what you see is the reality.
a large difference in degree is NOT a difference in kind…though the business of psychiatry would have everyone believe they’re the same thing.
This post is well over 1000 comments! Pumpkin may go down as the greatest blogger in history!
This post is well over 1000 comments! Pumpkin may go down as the greatest blogger in history!
I’m blessed to have a very smart and entertaining commentariat.
Thanks buddy! I enjoy your blog. Smart people, great conversations, and even though we can’t come to an agreement on a few things, I’ve learned a lot from you (as I hope you’ve learned a lot from me). (I also love our debates.)
PP did you see the link I provided yesterday about testes size? What’re your thoughts on that? Seems like we can come to an agreement on that eventually. I’m going to order the other two items this week and make a new post on it.
he wasn’t referring to you.
I know.
Mugaboo is a good commenter when he’s in his good mood, and he certainly understands my Anglo Prole diatribe.
He himself an Anglo Prole, understands why Anglo Proles are obsolete degenerates like the writer of this book:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/New-Machiavelli-Art-Politics-Business/dp/0471350958
This book which is written by a stupid limey bastard who still embraces the Protestant or Prole Work ethic of slaving many hours and allowing your bosses to abuse you, which is clearly a phenomenon in the Anglo Prole Sphere, where workplace violence is more prevalent that let’s say in a country like Spain.
the “work ethic” is an ethic of children.
slavery, feudalism, capitalism…
the “work ethic” is an abstraction of proles…yet another example of how virtue has become a luxury…a luxury of class…not just income…
that is, work is NOT and never has been and never can be a value IN ITSELF. what matters is accomplishment…not the accomplishment of status or wealth or fame or recognition…but the accomplishment of the brooklyn bridge, synecdochally speaking. what matters is vaccines and antibiotics not nobel prizes. etc. of course, needless to say…one’s ability to accomplish real things is not entirely up to him…the brooklyn bridge wasn’t built by one man.
oprah’s bastard son is one of these pathetic greasy poll climbers. his adoptive parents weren’t classy enough. he needs more…he doesn’t need more…he wants more…and he hates laziness…
he’s the epitome of a high prole. france has been americanized.
what does he “work” at?
does he even know?
what’s his project?
what’s he trying to accomplish?
more money, more status, or something real?
how will he know when he’s achieved what he set out to achieve?
never!
because he never set out to achieve anything.
i recall reading in a stall…
“work harder!”
it was some student, probably a chink, chiding himself for not working harder…
when…
the work was set for him…not by him…
his master was his grader…
to what end?
his end?
or an end provided him?
The Anglo Prole Sphere requires a large contingent of non-Whites, blacks being the lower servant class and technocrat chink types to do more sophisticated work for their greedy masters who in return get perks not afforded in their own respective country of origin. This all becomes a wrath to the less elite anglos who demand higher pay. Chinks in Spain are only restaurateurs serving egg rolls and arroz frito.
and lawyers…by definition…
can achieve NOTHING!
The Anglo Prole Sphere is prole in the sense that most of its best paid professionals are adversarial in nature. Basically these people are enemy of its citizens who take their money without offering a tangible benefit in return. America’s legal experts and finance experts do not provide any concrete value to society. Neither are the elites of Manhattan and DC of any real talent. American talent is not fungible — meaning much of their abilities are of no use to anyone outside of their borders.
PP, I take a trip to Barnes N Noble every week. Saw this book, Randomness in Evolution by John Bonner (a goy you’ve cited on brain size).
https://www.amazon.com/Randomness-Evolution-John-Tyler-Bonner/dp/0691157014
Looks like a good read, though extremely short at 130 pages and since it’s a teeny tiny book, it’s probably around 50 to 60 pages for a normal sized book. I couldn’t justify spending 30 dollars on a book that small so I just picked up these two instead.
https://www.amazon.com/Paradox-Evolution-Relationship-Selection-Reproduction/dp/1633880729
https://www.amazon.com/Population-Wars-Perspective-Competition-Coexistence/dp/1250017629
Recommended, they’re great reads.
A simple test at the age of three can determine whether children will grow up to be a burden on society, needing excessive welfare, ending up in jail or becoming obese.
Scientists at King’s College London followed more than 1,000 children from before school until they were 38, to find out if it was possible to predict who would go on to lead troubled lives.
All were given a 45 minute test aged three to gauge intelligence, language and motor skills, and were also assessed about their levels of tolerance, restlessness, impulsivity and social disadvantage.
After 35 years, the researchers found one fifth of the group was responsible for 81 per cent of the criminal convictions; three quarters of drug prescriptions; two thirds of welfare benefit payments and more than half of nights in hospital.
But crucially, they discovered that the outcome could have been predicted decades earlier, simply by looking at which children attained the lowest test scores aged three.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/12/12/test-predicts-children-will-grow-drain-society-just-three/
Fascinating.
I remember a movie many years ago called Gattaca that had something similar where they could sorted human babies into occupations at birth.
Same thing happened here, but with obesity and educational attainment.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2015/12/20/the-marshmallow-experiment/
society is a lower value than the individual…
much lower.
Yes I remember that one. But it wasn’t quite obesity, but more looking at impulse control as such.
“Yes I remember that one. But it wasn’t quite obesity, but more looking at impulse control as such.”
The follow-up study 30 years later found that point out.
Hey Pumpkin,
I’m sure you have had this request before, but have you considered doing an IQ analysis of Kanye West? I don’t want to steer you away from more serious, academic topics, but I was wondering what your thoughts were. I’m sure you’re familiar with him because of the press he’s received recently. Kanye West is maybe the leading celebrity amongst millenial “bougie” blacks.
Interesting points about him:
1. Arguably the greatest rap/hip-hop producer alive (though rap/hiphop production is not a particularly g-loaded field, it’s something to take into account)
2. Mother was an English professor (though at a historically black college, where the average SAT score was probably below the median of all test-takers)
3. From a middle class black background
4. Married to a whore/wanna-be pornstar
5. Claims he made A’s/B’s at a foreign Chinese school
6. Associates with top figures in the fashion world
7. Prone to anger/temper tantrums (sign of low IQ?)
Anyhow, what are your thoughts? Kanye West is also insane (literally) but I think he’s an interesting figure. IQ is probably just north of 100.
He’s Schizotypal. People think it’s the coke, but he’s had weird ideas and disordered thoughts for years.
I find a lot of musicians, the best ones are like that.
Mac DeMarco
Alexander Scriabin
Michael Jackson
er….Courtney Love.
It’s not a coincidence.
I need to check out more Mac DeMarco. But yeah, I don’t think it’s cocaine. Kanye claims to not even do drugs. Which I don’t believe, but still, I think his crazy goes far beyond that.
Mozart was portrayed as a schizotypal in the major Hollywood film about a decade ago. I have no idea if it is true, that Mozart was actually ‘crazy’ like that. If it is, it fits in with my theory about musicians.
The spectrum is not a flat line like people might think as it goes towards S. While these guys are closer to paranoids like Mel Gibson and schizoids like the guy who wrote the Catcher in the Rye (which explains the Schizoid mindset exactly)….there’s still a world of difference.
They would never do a mass shooting for instance.
I’ll add him to my waiting list. He’s an interesting case in that his high social class background indicates he’s smarter than the average successful rapper, but in a way it indicates he’s dumber, since he had the advantage of high SES while other rappers had pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
No, not especially g loaded and not especially selective. There was a girl in my university who got a master’s degree despite having an overall IQ around 75. This was told to me by the university psychologist. But she had a huge verbal > performance IQ gap.
PP you should do a post that. I have a big gap in my scores.
I am super interested in A.I. but I am not good at programming computers.
https://illuminaticatblog.wordpress.com/2016/12/13/my-java-a-i-programs/
I’m thinking pumpkin’s 2nd comment was in response to Afrosapiens above…
Did he tell you her name ? If yes, that’s really unethical.
Hollywood doubling down on the anti white male routine.
Rogue One.
Rogue studios.
Pretty soon we are going to have paedophilia in a mainstream movie at this rate, but not before another wave a democrat losses in the senate eliminating the filibuster on Trump.
Hollywood is deranged at this point. The Jew id is clawing at white culture like feral rodent.
according to the interwebs 90% of CPGEs are public.
stumbled upon this page while creating an IQ test similar to https://www.unitedwecare.com/
Dunno why it suggested this but nice discussion going on here. I really don’t believe in the concept of measuring IQ – it is very unreliable.