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 Although the adopted white and black kids scored well above the national white and black means (corrected for outdated norms) of about 102 and 86 respectively (U.S. norms) in childhood (though not at 17), large racial IQ gaps were found among the adopted kids at both ages.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 knew a guy that worked for IBM’s psychometric testing commercial software department.
The problem is that the academy is controlled by Zion, so they will not allow studies or even research to take place on this issue because it challenges the Illusion of the Blank Slate.
So you have to infer the reasons for the gap in another way.
Anyways, IBM does have a lot of pertinent data (as do many other corporations I suppose). And if my friend is to be believed, the cognitive profile of blacks in the UK vs whites is the same or worse for the same educational levels.
The key to the puzzle is to look at the black white gap in other countries.
Surely all don’t have the exact same level of institutionalised discrimination? Even if you accept there is some level of OscarsSoWhite everywhere.
But if the nature of the gap is similarly large….its almost totally genetic.
The crazy thing I keep running into all my life is that ant people who lean autist/slave on the spectrum need crazy levels of inductive evidence to ‘prove’ something or attain knowledge. Most hedge fund guys, even the quant shops like renaissance tech, are dealing in probabilities or informed speculation. You will never get slam dunk incontrovertible evidence of the most important pieces of information.
If your girlfriend keeps disappearing every friday night and meets up with you the next day smelling like sex, looking tired and showing no interest in you sexually….she’s probably cheating. You don’t need a bulletproof peer reviewed study.
Likewise if Africa is dirt poor, not growing despite similarly poor countries elsewhere growing in South East and East Asia, most Africans sound dumb, blacks in every place of the planet score worse than whites/asians, and their culture puts a premium on testosterone…you don’t need to be an IBM employee to guess that IQ gap is almost wholly genetic.
In the same way the black/white athleticism gap is not just nutrition/lifestyle/training (although I suspect the gap is easier for the average black white pairing to close than IQ).
This is why people that lean autist have blank faces and a childlike quality ….or in other cases look retarded and ugly…because they’re dumb and retarded in a common sense way.
There are lads in nightclubs that can see HBD better than most Phd students in the sciences. They just can’t formalise it.
The problem for gamma jews like Weismann is not autism however, but obtuseness.
They either know it and reject it for emotional reasons, like our buddies gypsy and racerealist on the topic of dong size. Which is a lesser sin.
Or they either know it and reject it for very nefarious uncouth reasons. Which I’m sure nobody here is doing here – which the major intellectual sin of our times.
In any case, the Illusion must be maintained.
But shipping millions of Africans to Europe causes the underlying structural problem to be worse. When the Illusion fails, there will be much strife and violence.
The Jews may have only themselves to blame for unleashing new followers of the fasces. They had it good, before their neurosis led them to conclude bizarrely that white nations must be repopulated with blacks and others.
Never kill the golden goose. Perhaps risperidone would have been a better solution to their paranoia than bringing in more Magic Negroes to deflect attention from their power and wealth.
And by Jews I mainly mean Zionist Jews. Obviously not all Jews toe the Likkud Party line. A lot of them are Blank Slate for similar reasons to Soros ie. Reason 1 above.
“like our buddies gypsy”
Your case was based on a deduction founded on poor data.
Repudiating you on empirical grounds and showing you stronger empirical results is not emotional denial.
But whatever helps you sleep at night.
So you stand by Weizmann and Psychology Today even now?
No but I do stand by more recent empirical studies of testosterone and estiradol in the development of whites and blacks, rather than your convenience-sample sourced Canadian study.
Don’t mistake me for RR, and don’t misapprehend my sentiments.
“They either know it and reject it for emotional reasons, like our buddies gypsy and racerealist on the topic of dong size. Which is a lesser sin.”
I understand what different hormones in the body do and how they effect growth. The biggest favor is IGF-1. Whites have the most, blacks have the least. It’s directly related to penile growth and scrotum circumference. What does that tell you?
Never mind the fact that the studies done were nonrepresentative and nonrandom.
I don’t understand why PP automatically believes Rushton on most things. I’ve never seen him critique Rushton and say he was wrong.
I don’t reject it for emotional reasons. I reject it because of my knowledge on hormones and the human body.
PP et al, please read up on hormones and what they do in the body, especially how IGF-1 affects growth and which race has the highest levels.
your whole comment is just brilliant especially this sentence
“There are lads in nightclubs that can see HBD better than most Phd students in the sciences. They just can’t formalise it.”
Take a bow Sir…I have many of your comments saved ..they are just Sniper Killshots of Truth
If your girlfriend keeps disappearing every friday night and meets up with you the next day smelling like sex, looking tired and showing no interest in you sexually….she’s probably cheating. You don’t need a bulletproof peer reviewed study.
True, and yet so many people are shocked to learn that their spouse has been cheating on them for decades. Why didn’t they see the signs? Because it was too painful, so they kept demanding more and more proof, and talked themselves out of what their common sense was telling them. One could argue it’s the same with the black-white IQ gap.
Intelligence is just the ability to solve problems, but most people solve the problem of rationalizing what they want to believe, not finding truth.
But I disagree with you about autistics lacking HBD awareness. If anything autistics have an obsessive interest in objective truth, regardless of social consequences. I strongly suspect Bill Gates is a closet HBDer.
“but most people solve the problem of rationalizing what they want to believe, not finding truth.”
Because rationalization doesn’t lead to truth.
So non-complex organisms that solve problems and “adapt” to their environment, how intelligent are they? You’re only talking about humans, I’m talking about the animal kingdom as a while.
Mostly joos, yes, invented this too much abstract theories with the fundamental goal: Give mental games to the “white smart fraction” break their brilliant minds.
Your criticism about that “data-driven people” even for obvious things is my criticism too. They, mostly of smarter people, I call smartchos, are one of responsible for most of problems in the world.
Google Lagwrdo Republic, Gulliver adventures.
But your always gratuitous hater agasint autistics must be re-analyzed or reflected. Sound genuine ignorance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagado
The mystery, such as there is, could be resolved very easily.
Professor Robert Plomin is sitting on data that could conclusively answer the question one way or another. He has IQ test and other cognitive test data of many thousands of pairs of twins of many ethnic groups (including numerous mixed-race subjects), at many ages, from toddler up to young adult. He and his team have published many papers based on these tests, and also on DNA data from these twin-pairs. Yet, he has never published anything on the subject of racial or ethnic differences. Nor has he any intention of doing so. At the beginning of his career, around 1970, he saw how people (Jensen, Eysenck) were treated by mobs whipped up by ideologues (such as Kamin), and resolved to avoid the issue thereafter.
Fear is the reason why discussion of this subject always turns to a small handful of decades-old studies, one of which (Eyferth) is so obviously flawed, from the standpoint of this question, that it shouldn’t even be under discussion at all.
Plomin knows the data would show the IQ gap is genetic.
He’s not suicidal.
Lynn has to work in Ulster University now, when he should be much higher in the totem pole.
Notice how non-america university professors are only allowed talk about it.
American academia is controlled by Zion.
true.
and there is the tendency among self-identified “naturalists” to insist on detailed and rational explanations for various social phenomena when it comes to groups of people. without such they exclaim, “conspiracy theorist! anti-semite!” with such they do the same.
scientists do not insist on such explanations for lower animals.
When a female Sacculina is implanted in a male crab it will interfere with the crab’s hormonal balance. This sterilizes it and changes the bodily layout of the crab to resemble that of a female crab by widening and flattening its abdomen, among other things. The female Sacculina then forces the crab’s body to release hormones, causing it to act like a female crab, even to the point of performing female mating dances.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacculina
history following 1945…it shows that the nazis were more right than wrong.
Why regurgitating old posts PP ?
Even though I’ve discussed these old studies before, I typically just accepted the Minnesota study as proof that the gap is overwhelmingly genetic and dismissed the others as flawed.
But I think it’s dangerous to dismiss the Moore study because it showed the exact opposite of the Minnesota study and its only relevant flaws either underestimate its conclusion (lack of prenatal controls) or could be solved by giving it proportionally lesser weight (since it had a smaller sample size)
Ok, I thought you would go through what we discussed yesterday (motivation, nutrition, pollution…)
Well those factors are largely (though not entirely) controlled in the studies I cited since the kids were adopted into good homes and in the Minnesota study all born from white wombs & because I focused on children (an age when motivation is acquired from the family environment).
Motivation could entirely explain the low IQ of black teenagers, since even those adopted by whites acquire black cultural norms by adolescence as James Flynn believes, but the fact that the IQs of adopted blacks seem to lag behind adopted whites even at age 7, undermines the motivation hypothesis to some degree.
“Well those factors are largely (though not entirely) controlled in the studies I cited since the kids were adopted into good homes”
No, significan differences remain in their pre-adoption experiences and adoptive family SES.
” but the fact that the IQs of adopted blacks seem to lag behind adopted whites even at age 7, undermines the motivation hypothesis to some degree.”
No, being a black kid or mixed race kid in a 1976 all white school must have been a difficult experience in terms of identity, bullying. Those factors may have effect on motivation too.
PP, you have a strong tendency to make quick simplistic assumptions that you never verify.
Life in the same country = same nutrition
Adoption = same environment
White mother = same pre-adoption history
Immigrants = hyper-selection at the same level
Affirmative action = opportunities for all
and the list is not exhaustive.
You should really dig deeper into the notions you try to handle.
You have to make simplistic assumptions or you’ll never be able to draw any conclusions at all. No scientific study can perfectly control for everything. Every control is approximate if you dig deep enough
And there’s reason to believe relatively equal nutrition within same (developed) countries and eras
Blacks and whites have had virtually the same heights since WWI. All social classes within America have seen secular increases in height over the 20th century
What makes you think he was trying to draw an conclusion and not defending one?
Oh no, I don’t what casses you took in college but in France, the main exam exercise is dissertation in which the introductory part consists in defining the notions we’re gonna work with with extreme precision. Scientific papers do the same. When they say “nutrition” they list and define the actual nutrients they will be discussing.
Most studies in the hard sciences but also in economics, anthropology, sociology actually do perfectly control for everything they think matters to the subject.
Simplistic assumptions have really nothing to do with serious science, they might be formulated at the end of a paper as directions for further research, but they are never the foundation of a whole study nor used to dismiss arguments.
“Blacks and whites have had virtually the same heights since WWI.”
Black might have genes for taller height. Evidence abounds in the sense of blacks not having the same micronutrient intake as whites and experiencing more food insecurity.
And likewise, same height = same nutrition is yet another simplistic assumption
PP, what nutrients affect whether one gets to genetic height or not (I know, I want to see if you do too).
Which macros and micros. *
“You have to make simplistic assumptions or you’ll never be able to draw any conclusions at all.”
Research is not just about making conclusions, it’s also about furthering research and questioning any conclusion.
For instance.
Nutrition affects intelligence, blacks and white differe in intelligence.
So you have to know if blacks and whites differe in nutrition, you can’t rule that hypothesis out because you believe they don’t, you have to investigate it and find out whether they do or don’t. And you have to search nutritional intake, deficiencies, metabolic differences… Not height as a loose proxy, not weight nor the fact that no one apparently starving in America, this is not what nutrition is.
If you find no difference you can rule it out, if you find some, try to find out why it exists. Is it for economic reasons, culture-related diet, is there something different in the absorption patterns ? This is how scientists do.
In fact, height in the US mostly increased in children
Anglo Prole blacks in the American colleges during the 70s and 80s were smarter than ones today, no doubt, there was no dumbing down effect to put more of them in college.
America was more Darwinian in the post civil rights era for all races, than what one finds today in the 21st century — despite all the complaints made by Mugabe that the American elites have made the world a more oppressive place for its citizens. It’s much easier to have access to the things that one could only dream of 30 years ago, because of technological advances, more variety and cheap credit. However, humans are predatory, tribal and domineering, and they want to construct a narrative that unimportant things are scarce and significant to differentiate themselves from other groups.
In fact, height in the US mostly increased in children
Other studies claim much larger secular increases in U.S. height, particularly when you control for ethnicity (Hispanic immigration has reduced U.S. height).
A century ago, American men ranked as the third tallest in the world, standing at 171 centimeters (5 feet 7 inches). Now, they place as the 37th, with an average of 177 centimeters (5 feet 10 inches).
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/26/health/human-height-changes-century/
No, significan differences remain in their pre-adoption experiences and adoptive family SES.
Yes, I mentioned that the kids with two black bio-parents had significantly different pre-adoption experience which is why I excluded them from my analysis, but I’ve never heard that the kids with only one black bio-parent had worse environments than the fully white adopted kids. If you have evidence of that please link to it.
No, being a black kid or mixed race kid in a 1976 all white school must have been a difficult experience in terms of identity, bullying. Those factors may have effect on motivation too.
That’s a plausible hypothesis. I remember learning that even by a young age, black kids in previous generations so internalized society’s white supremacy that they preferred white dolls to black dolls. I also recall reading that on the Draw-a-man IQ test, black kids would draw a white man instead of a black man, at least until recently.
So it’s plausible that even by age seven, black kids might lack confidence on a standardized test.
However plausible theories are a dime a dozen. Has anyone done a study showing how representative samples of black and white kids are affected by test motivation. If for example, giving a cash reward increased the scores of black kids by 15 points but increased the score of white kids not at all, then that would be strong evidence that the test gap is 100% caused by test motivation. Or if someone found a high correlation between the size of the black-white gap and how sensitive a test was to motivation, that too would be strong evidence.
However I suspect if the explanation was that simple, someone would have discovered it 40 years ago, as social scientists have been obsessed with debunking Jensenism since the 1960s and you can fill a library with all the studies that have tried to do so.
For the record Charles Murray rejects the test motivation hypothesis because on chronometric tests, blacks have the fastest movement times but the slowest reaction times so how could they be highly motivated and yet not motivated on the same task? However I think this argument is flawed because Jensen once implied that it’s impossible to be unmotivated on chronometric tasks without producing times that are so absurdly slow they will not be credible; not sure if that’s true though.
Murray also argued iirc that because blacks do relatively well on memory span for digits, but do much worse on the much more g loaded BACKWARDS memory span for digits, that motivation is a much less likely explanation than g. However backwards digit span requires a lot more concentration so it’s possible it’s more affected by motivation.
If you find no difference you can rule it out, if you find some, try to find out why it exists. Is it for economic reasons, culture-related diet, is there something different in the absorption patterns ? This is how scientists do.
LOL! No it’s not how scientists do. The work of actual scientists is actually a hundred times more simplistic than mine. In the field of anthropology for example, since population A (i.e. Homo erectus) had a bigger brain, better tools, and emerged later in evolution than population B (Homo habilis) it was genetically much smarter. PERIOD.
No one controls for nutrition, or motivation, or historical circumstances, or opportunities, or anything else, it’s just BIGGER BRAIN + BETTER TOOLS + MORE RECENT = GENETICALLY SMARTER.
If the same simple standard were applied to race differences, this issue would have been settled in the 19th century and indeed it was. The only reason scientists now hold this one question to a much higher standard than all other anthropological comparisons is the post WWII rise of political correctness.
“And you have to search nutritional intake, deficiencies, metabolic differences… Not height as a loose proxy, not weight nor the fact that no one apparently starving in America, this is not what nutrition is.”
Afrosapiens I fully agree with you that this needs to be looked in to. PP, just looking at height and weight isn’t enough to infer whether or not there is food nutrition for a population as there are numerous other confounds.
Also PP, I’ve shown how low SES is a case for worse nutrition, higher carb food, etc. Black women are more likely to be obese, as Afrosapiens has said. This also had to do with black girls entering menarche earlier (along with elevated levels fo IGF-1, which is another cause and I will write about that shit week). So bad nutrition leads to obesity. Bad nutrition leads to nutrients deficiencies which then effect brain size, brain growth, and intelligence (as well as other musculoskeletal differences). Nutrition is one thing that needs to be looked at extensively. Just because people aren’t starving doesn’t mean that nutrition doesn’t have an effect on intelligence in first world countries, because the quality of food ingested matters greatly.
Look at France. They’ve seen almost a 4 point IQ drop in 10 years. Idiots may say that it’s due to MENA and SSA emigration. But it’s due to dysgenics as well as nutrient deficiencies (in my opinion as they have had bad nutrition in the past decade).
“No one controls for nutrition, or motivation, or historical circumstances, or opportunities, or anything else, it’s just BIGGER BRAIN + BETTER TOOLS + MORE RECENT = GENETICALLY SMARTER.”
I laughed. Nutrition should controlled for, unless you don’t believe that nutrition affects intelligence? Bigger brain due to…. Cooking!! Cooking meat allows for…. More kcal and better nutrient absorption which leads to the capacity for bigger brain size and body size. Re: floresiensis. I’ve been through the increase in brain size back in October, pp, did you forget?
Stressing this again: energy drives evolution.
Always a desert of REAL GOOD arguments… yes, PP is right about you RR, and it’s bizarrely funny to watch your try of mental gym… well, you’re personal trainer is not*
I laughed. Nutrition should controlled for,
But anthropologists don’t control for it. That’s the point you moron!
Stressing this again: energy drives evolution.
Completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
“But anthropologists don’t control for it. That’s the point you moron!”
The point is, with the tools that erectus had he could make food easier to eat. Human molar size started to decrease around that time. Then cooking as well as increased kcal consumption, the most important variables in having a big brain!
“Completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.”
No it’s not. Erectus wouldn’t have been able to evolve the bigger brain without more energy. I understand this with my 66 IQ, why don’t you understand it with your 171 IQ?
And I’d rather have a 66 IQ (I don’t, nowhere near there) and have successful businesses and be well-respected in my community instead of a prostitute with a 171 IQ.
Try to learn things for the SAT in a school full of violent blacks where they teach 5th grade things.
“but I’ve never heard that the kids with only one black bio-parent had worse environments than the fully white adopted kids. If you have evidence of that please link to it.”
My bad, I should have put it as an assumption. One thing you will agree with too is assortative mating, lower IQ white men must have had children with similar IQ black men instead of men at the typical black mean.
“However plausible theories are a dime a dozen.”
Yes, but all non-whites including Asians underperform in this study.
“However I suspect if the explanation was that simple, someone would have discovered it 40 years ago,”
The acting white hypothesis is quite close to the motivation hypothesis. Duckworth’s meta-analysis has 157 citations on google scholar, not bad for a 2011 study. The Pioneer fund would not do as well. The reviewed studies are quite old for some of them. Also, the race-IQ controversy is only alive in three journals: Personality and Individual Differences, Intelligence, Mankind Quarterly, all have Pioneer fund members at their board, none is a leading publication in its own field. I just think that they just don’t play on the same level as those who indeed make interesting findings.
“For the record Charles Murray rejects the test motivation hypothesis because on chronometric tests, blacks have the fastest movement times but the slowest reaction times so how could they be highly motivated and yet not motivated on the same task?”
Here, anemia, malnutrition, anxiety, inter-racial confusion might be factors. Did Jensen ever bothered controlling for motivation ?
“he work of actual scientists is actually a hundred times more simplistic than mine. In the field of anthropology for example, since population A (i.e. Homo erectus) had a bigger brain, better tools, and emerged later in evolution than population B (Homo habilis) it was genetically much smarter. PERIOD.”
No, that’s syllogistic fallacy and scientists do the best to avoid it, and they are right doing so since brain size has recently shrunk.
“If the same simple standard were applied to race differences, this issue would have been settled in the 19th century and indeed it was.”
Whatever!
My bad, I should have put it as an assumption. One thing you will agree with too is assortative mating, lower IQ white men must have had children with similar IQ black men instead of men at the typical black mean.
The fact that people don’t mate randomly does it make it more difficult to interpret the IQs of mixed race kids, but given that the IQ correlation between sexual partners is far from perfect, and given that children resemble the IQ of their race, not just their parents, I think the average mixed kid has an IQ between the two parent populations.
Yes, but all non-whites including Asians underperform in this study.
The Asian sample was very small and may have been mostly Native Americans or Southeast Asians, not Northeast Asians who typically score high when adopted by whites.
The acting white hypothesis is quite close to the motivation hypothesis. Duckworth’s meta-analysis has 157 citations on google scholar,
I don’t doubt blacks are under pressure to not act white, but the question is how many IQ points does that actually deduct in the testing room and how early in life does the effect emerge.
Also, the race-IQ controversy is only alive in three journals: Personality and Individual Differences, Intelligence, Mankind Quarterly, all have Pioneer fund members at their board, none is a leading publication in its own field.
Intelligence is the leading publication in the field of human intelligence differences, I believe.
Did Jensen ever bothered controlling for motivation ?
I’m sure he’s discussed it, but I don’t recall many specifics.
No, that’s syllogistic fallacy and scientists do the best to avoid it, and they are right doing so since brain size has recently shrunk.
Name me a single scientist that denies H. erectus was genetically smarter than H. habilis or who denies H. sapiens is smarter than H. erectus? They all simply go by the Occam’s razor which suggests the bigger brained, more recent, and more technological hominin population is genetically smarter.
The recent shrinkage in brain size (which has arguably been recovered over the last century as nutrition improved to stone age levels) was an anomaly because the smaller brained humans were newer and more technological so that’s been the subject of debate, but when all three criteria (brain size, technology, and newness) all line up scientists simply assume a genetic difference in intelligence.
Now it’s plausible racial differences are an exception to this rule, and I’ll keep an open mind, but it goes against Occam’s razor.
“since brain size has recently shrunk.”
He won’t accept it. Because the general trend has shown an increase. But the past 30k or so years there is a decrease. Why? Society and agriculture.
He’ll just keep saying that brain size has shown a trend since 65 mya, continuously quoting pages 292-4 of Race, Evolution and Behavior on evolutionary “progress”.
“yes, PP is right about you RR”
Please elaborate.
“I’m sure he’s discussed it, but I don’t recall many specifics.”
The hypothesis that the mean Black–White group difference on these tests reflects a difference in motivation is again disconfirmed by the fact that although Whites averaged faster reaction times than Blacks, Blacks averaged faster movement times than Whites. And again, East Asians typically averaged higher than Whites on the g factor extracted from their (faster) reaction time measures (Jensen & Whang, 1994).
pg. 248
Click to access Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf
“but given that the IQ correlation between sexual partners is far from perfect,”
Plomin says IQ is the most similar trait that two lovers share.
“children resemble the IQ of their race, not just their parents,”
Ok, so it’s not genetics then, because we inherit genes from our parents, not from our “race”.
“The Asian sample was very small”
Oh, come on… There were 12 asians, 16 whites and 22 blacks. Only the mixed-race sample was respectably large.
“may have been mostly Native Americans or Southeast Asians”
Who knows ?
“but the question is how many IQ points does that actually deduct in the testing room and how early in life does the effect emerge.”
http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1018601108/-/DCSupplemental/sd01.xls
As you can see here, at the same base IQ, gains are the same in high-schoolers and kindergartners.
“Intelligence is the leading publication in the field of human intelligence differences, I believe.”
It might be your favorite, but according to SJR, Intelligence ranks 24th by impact factor in cognitive psychology and 30th by H index.
http://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?category=3205&order=h&ord=desc
“Name me a single scientist that denies H. erectus was genetically smarter than H. habilis or who denies H. sapiens is smarter than H. erectus? They all simply go by the Occam’s razor which suggests the bigger brained, more recent, and more technological hominin population is genetically smarter.”
How about Neanderthals, their brains were bigger, name a scientist who argues that Neanderthals are genetically smarter.
And about recency, Bonobos are the most recent primate species ? How genetically smarter to the rest of us are they ?
“The recent shrinkage in brain size (which has arguably been recovered over the last century as nutrition improved to stone age levels) was an anomaly because the smaller brained humans were newer and more technological so that’s been the subject of debate, but when all three criteria (brain size, technology, and newness) all line up scientists simply assume a genetic difference in intelligence.”
Lol have you got an ounce of serious references to back your claims ?
Plomin says IQ is the most similar trait that two lovers share.
He’s probably right, but the correlation is still only 0.45. Higher than the 0.3 correlation for height, but still only moderate.
Ok, so it’s not genetics then, because we inherit genes from our parents, not from our “race”.
Those who believe in HBD would give a genetic explanation: A parent from a low IQ race will pass on low IQ genes to his kids, even if that parent has a very high IQ.
Oh, come on… There were 12 asians, 16 whites and 22 blacks. Only the mixed-race sample was respectably large.
But we don’t know how many of the 12 Asians were Asian since the Asian category including indigenous people. I would love to see a break down of this category.
“but the question is how many IQ points does that actually deduct in the testing room and how early in life does the effect emerge.”
http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1018601108/-/DCSupplemental/sd01.xlshttp://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1018601108/-/DCSupplemental/sd01.xls
As you can see here, at the same base IQ, gains are the same in high-schoolers and kindergartners.
But you need to show the incentive effect is much greater in blacks than in whites if you want to argue blacks are held back by low motivation
“Intelligence is the leading publication in the field of human intelligence differences, I believe.”
It might be your favorite, but according to SJR, Intelligence ranks 24th by impact factor in cognitive psychology and 30th by H index.
http://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?category=3205&order=h&ord=deschttp://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?category=3205&order=h&ord=desc
But much of cognitive psychology doesn’t focus on individual differences in intelligence. In that specific sub-field, it likely ranks very high.
“Name me a single scientist that denies H. erectus was genetically smarter than H. habilis or who denies H. sapiens is smarter than H. erectus? They all simply go by the Occam’s razor which suggests the bigger brained, more recent, and more technological hominin population is genetically smarter.”
How about Neanderthals, their brains were bigger, name a scientist who argues that Neanderthals are genetically smarter.
No, their brains were smaller than the modern human Europeans who replaced them, however once agriculture was discovered, the brains of modern humans shrunk, probably from disease and malnutrition, and only with the nutritional advances of the 20th century have we recovered our huge stone age brains.
And I never claimed brain size was the only criterion anthropologists use. They also assume newer populations are genetically smarter than older ones (Neanderthals are much older than modern humans) and they also look at technology (Neanderthal tools were more primitive).
The point is that by all 3 of the conventional criteria anthropologists use, whites are more genetically intelligent than blacks, and in addition to those criteria, we also have psychometric and chronometric data and adoption studies.
I’m more than happy to be proven wrong about race & IQ, I just think you have an uphill battle.
And about recency, Bonobos are the most recent primate species ? How genetically smarter to the rest of us are they ?
They’re a recent species but they’re within an ancient genus and genus trumps species in the taxonomical hierarchy.
Lol have you got an ounce of serious references to back your claims ?
Which specific claim do you seriously doubt?
“race will pass on low IQ genes to his kids, even if that parent has a very high IQ.”
No, replace IQ by height, people who are taller than there population’s mean have children who are taller than their population’s mean.
” I would love to see a break down of this category.”
Me too.
“But you need to show the incentive effect is much greater in blacks than in whites if you want to argue blacks are held back by low motivation”
That’s irrelevant, a black sample that has a score of 100 is not supposed to gain more than a white sample scoring at the same level, likewise a white sample with a score of 80 is not supposed to gain less than a black scoring at a similar level. So what matters the most is the baseline IQ irrespective of race and the fact that the lower it is, the larger the gains.
“But much of cognitive psychology doesn’t focus on individual differences in intelligence. In that specific sub-field, it likely ranks very high.”
No, it ranks even worse in the field of developmental and educational psychology (which focuses more on individual differences). It ranks 38th by impact factor and 46th by H index. And no matter the rankings, its mediocre H index and impact factor means its contributors are low-rank scholars and that the journal has little influence on research in general.
“No, their brains were smaller than the modern human Europeans who replaced them, however once agriculture was discovered, the brains of modern humans shrunk,”
No, brains started to shrink some 28ky ago, a long time before any agriculture developed, and hunter-gatherers saw their brains shrink too.
http://discovermagazine.com/2010/sep/25-modern-humans-smart-why-brain-shrinking
“And I never claimed brain size was the only criterion anthropologists use.”
Oh no… You just said scientist think bigger brain = better tools = newer species = smarter genes, and that they looked no further. Do you realize that if science was just as simple their would almost be no research in any field, though their would be lots of errors.
“whites are more genetically intelligent than blacks,”
Show me a genetic study that corroborates that. All that I know is that geneticists would reject your tree-model of racial genetic variation to begin with, mankind doesn’t have separate branches.
“I’m more than happy to be proven wrong about race & IQ, I just think you have an uphill battle.”
Lol, first of all, the overwhelming majority of available evidence goes towards a 100% environmental explanation to the gap. Second, you would hate to realize that you and your pioneer fund gurus have been saying shit for decades now.
“we also have psychometric and chronometric data and adoption studies.”
Among the adoption studies that you have yourself cited, at least two show blacks outperforming whites or mixed-race kids. You make up speculative arguments to dismiss the one that challenges HBD the most but you have no reason doing so.
They are kids of immigrants ? Well all American whites are descended from immigrants. Does it make them artificially smarter than whites as a whole, same for the Chinese. And seriously, what kind of hyper-selected migrants abandon their children ?
Blacks mature faster ? That’s not what age at menarche in Africa and the Caribbean suggest. And why would body maturation equal intellectual maturation ?
“They’re a recent species but they’re within an ancient genus and genus trumps species in the taxonomical hierarchy.”
Then how much more evolved are bonobos relative to chimpanzees ? Have they got bigger brains ? No they don’t. Better tools ? I don’t think so.
“Which specific claim do you seriously doubt?”
Virtually anything you write is nonsense to me. You’re out of touch with reality.
“race will pass on low IQ genes to his kids, even if that parent has a very high IQ.”
No, replace IQ by height, people who are taller than there population’s mean have children who are taller than their population’s mean.
Yes, but tall parents from short populations have kids that are on average shorter than equally tall parents from tall populations, which is why I stated that kids resemble both their parents and their population ancestry.
“But you need to show the incentive effect is much greater in blacks than in whites if you want to argue blacks are held back by low motivation”
That’s irrelevant, a black sample that has a score of 100 is not supposed to gain more than a white sample scoring at the same level, likewise a white sample with a score of 80 is not supposed to gain less than a black scoring at a similar level. So what matters the most is the baseline IQ irrespective of race and the fact that the lower it is, the larger the gains.
I’m not sure you understand.
Let’s say you have three people:
Person A: IQ 90 without incentive, IQ 100 with incentives (increase of 10 points)
Person B: IQ 100 without incentive, IQ 105 with incentives (increase of 5 points)
Person C: IQ 110 without incentive, IQ 110 with incentives (increase of 0 points)
Notice how the lower IQ people can increase the most, yet the rank order can stay the same? It’s possible that giving incentives to blacks and whites would do nothing to shrink the black-white gap because it could simply increase the mean and compress the scale, while leaving the rank order very similar. But ultimately the rank order is what determines the IQ scores. The black mean IQ of 85 means only that they score in the bottom 15% of whites, and while incentives might shrink the raw score gap between the 15th percentile (IQ 85) and the 50th percentile (IQ 100), they would not necessarily shift the percentile ranks themselves.
“But much of cognitive psychology doesn’t focus on individual differences in intelligence. In that specific sub-field, it likely ranks very high.”
No, it ranks even worse in the field of developmental and educational psychology (which focuses more on individual differences).
Educational psychology doesn’t focus exclusively on individual differences. In the specific field of intelligence research, especially human intelligence research, the journal Intelligence ranks very high.
And no matter the rankings, its mediocre H index and impact factor means its contributors are low-rank scholars and that the journal has little influence on research in general.
So? A lot of excellent work gets ignored. That’s life.
“No, their brains were smaller than the modern human Europeans who replaced them, however once agriculture was discovered, the brains of modern humans shrunk,”
No, brains started to shrink some 28ky ago,
False. Brains in Europe didn’t start shrinking until 10,000 years ago. See 2:06 in below video:
and hunter-gatherers saw their brains shrink too.
Hunter-gatherers saw their nutritional and health status devastated too as agriculturalists colonized their homelands.
“And I never claimed brain size was the only criterion anthropologists use.”
Oh no… You just said scientist think bigger brain = better tools = newer species = smarter genes, and that they looked no further. Do you realize that if science was just as simple their would almost be no research in any field, though their would be lots of errors.
No I said scientists think bigger brain + better tools + newer species = smarter genes (all three criteria are considered) and if you don’t believe it, prey tell how anthropologists are so confident that H. Sapiens are genetically smarter than H. Erectus who was genetically smarter than H. Habilis who was genetically smarter than australopithecines? You think they’ve isolated the specific intelligence genes that differentiate these populations? Face it, if HBD is pseudoscience, than the whole field of anthropology is pseudoscience on steroids.
“whites are more genetically intelligent than blacks,”
Show me a genetic study that corroborates that.
My point is that if scientists applied the exact same standard to modern race differences that they applied to other hominin differences, there’d be no debate. All the conventional criteria (brain size, technology, newness) points to whites being genetically smarter than blacks. Now the conventional criteria could be wrong but my point is there’s a complete double standard caused by political correctness.
“I’m more than happy to be proven wrong about race & IQ, I just think you have an uphill battle.”
Lol, first of all, the overwhelming majority of available evidence goes towards a 100% environmental explanation to the gap. Second, you would hate to realize that you and your pioneer fund gurus have been saying shit for decades now.
My interest is intelligence and its impact on individuals, society, history, and evolution. It’s impossible to discuss that honestly and fully without having tentative estimates for the IQs of different races, but if those estimates are wrong, I would love to revise all my theories in light of the new evidence. Personally I find all the controversy over HBD a distraction. I would love if someone proved all the races have the same IQ genes; then I could continue with my interest in IQ without the stigma.
But unlike you I’m psychologically incapable of believing something just because the media and academia tell me to. I follow logic and evidence wherever it leads.
“we also have psychometric and chronometric data and adoption studies.”
Among the adoption studies that you have yourself cited, at least two show blacks outperforming whites or mixed-race kids. You make up speculative arguments to dismiss the one that challenges HBD the most but you have no reason doing so.
I may devote a whole post to the Tizard study, to give it the attention it deserves.
“They’re a recent species but they’re within an ancient genus and genus trumps species in the taxonomical hierarchy.”
Then how much more evolved are bonobos relative to chimpanzees ? Have they got bigger brains ? No they don’t. Better tools ? I don’t think so.
Never said all newer populations are genetically smarter; newness is just one of three criteria anthropologists consider, because of the tendency for primates to have grown more intelligent over evolutionary time.
“I would love if someone proved all the races have the same IQ genes;”
Click to access 1441332656918.pdf
“Yes, but tall parents from short populations have kids that are on average shorter than equally tall parents from tall populations”
No, they can be even taller or shorter depending on whether the genes that are transmitted and expressed favor taller or shorter height.
“Notice how the lower IQ people can increase the most, yet the rank order can stay the same?”
That’s not what the study I referenced to says. What it shows is that baseline incentives lead to a relative equalization of IQ across samples and that the trend is led by the lower scoring samples making most of the gains. That’s important for blacks, but for whites too, who likely have optimal conditions IQs closer to 105 (even though it’s always 100 by definition).
“Educational psychology doesn’t focus exclusively on individual differences. In the specific field of intelligence research, especially human intelligence research, the journal Intelligence ranks very high.”
Lol, obviously, if there are only 5 journals that do the exact same job as Intelligence, it ranks very high for sure.
“So? A lot of excellent work gets ignored. That’s life.”
Excellence seldom goes unnoticed by peers.
“False. Brains in Europe didn’t start shrinking until 10,000 years ago.”
Most sources say this worldwide trend began much earlier.
“Hunter-gatherers saw their nutritional and health status devastated too as agriculturalists colonized their homelands.”
Australia was exclusively inhabited by hunter gatherers until the 18th century, brains shrunk there as well.
“No I said scientists think bigger brain + better tools + newer species = smarter genes (all three criteria are considered) and if you don’t believe it, prey tell how anthropologists are so confident that H. Sapiens are genetically smarter than H. Erectus who was genetically smarter than H. Habilis who was genetically smarter than australopithecines? You think they’ve isolated the specific intelligence genes that differentiate these populations? Face it, if HBD is pseudoscience, than the whole field of anthropology is pseudoscience on steroids.”
In fact and according to anthropologists, before behavioral modernity, there is very little evidence that Homo Sapiens is more advanced than contemporary hominids. On the other hand behavioral modernity is not associated with changes in human anatomy.
“Now the conventional criteria could be wrong but my point is there’s a complete double standard caused by political correctness.”
First, that’s not the conventional criteria, second the “double standard” is caused by human exceptionalism. Other creatures, don’t have history, culture, socio-economic background, motivation, and other things that make humans humans. Third, you have to prove that IQ is a primarily biologic variable, that you can translate it in terms of hormones, tissue composition, neuro-transmitters and so on.
“I would love if someone proved all the races have the same IQ genes; then I could continue with my interest in IQ without the stigma.”
But you’d love more to shown races don’t have the same IQ, then you could continue with the satisfaction of having been right all this time without the stigma of making up things.
“Never said all newer populations are genetically smarter; newness is just one of three criteria anthropologists consider, because of the tendency for primates to have grown more intelligent over evolutionary time.”
Come on, you’re saying over and over “East Asians are the newest race, hence the most evolved, hence the most progressive”. And that’s not even true, the most divergent populations in the world are the Southern African Bushmen and indigenous Patagonians.
““I would love if someone proved all the races have the same IQ genes;”
https://media.8ch.net/pdfs/src/1441332656918.pdf”
This study is crap, Piffer submitted it to Intelligence for peer review and they rejected it on methodological grounds.
So he corrected his scores following the recommendations of the reviewers, which yielded those results:
Whatever the scores, the genetic markers were not associated with IQ but with years of education. The tested subjects were European, so we can find lots of other alleles in non-European populations. Moreover, we don’t know what effect these alleles have in non-European contexts.
“Yes, but tall parents from short populations have kids that are on average shorter than equally tall parents from tall populations”
No, they can be even taller or shorter depending on whether the genes that are transmitted and expressed favor taller or shorter height.
Wrong. If you have two 184 cm Dutch parents, and two 184 cm Peruvian parents, the former will likely have taller kids. This is because the children of extreme parents regress to their population mean, and Dutch kids belong to a taller population than Peruvian kids.
“Notice how the lower IQ people can increase the most, yet the rank order can stay the same?”
That’s not what the study I referenced to says. What it shows is that baseline incentives lead to a relative equalization of IQ across samples and that the trend is led by the lower scoring samples making most of the gains. That’s important for blacks, but for whites too, who likely have optimal conditions IQs closer to 105 (even though it’s always 100 by definition).
I don’t know what relative equalization of IQ even means in the context of the study you read. Two samples that differ by 15 IQ points before incentives, might differ by only 5 IQ points after incentives, but if the effect of the incentives is to shrink the variance in the entire group, then all you’ve done is compressed the scale to the point where 5 IQ points is now equal to the same percentile gap that 15 IQ points used to equal.
“So? A lot of excellent work gets ignored. That’s life.”
Excellence seldom goes unnoticed by peers.
Excellence goes unnoticed constantly.
“False. Brains in Europe didn’t start shrinking until 10,000 years ago.”
Most sources say this worldwide trend began much earlier.
It’s true that brains 28,000 years ago are bigger than brains 100 years ago, but that doesn’t prove the shrinkage began as early as 28,000 years ago. That’s the mistake most sources make.
“Hunter-gatherers saw their nutritional and health status devastated too as agriculturalists colonized their homelands.”
Australia was exclusively inhabited by hunter gatherers until the 18th century, brains shrunk there as well.
The study found that 19 male Australian crania from the terminal Pleistocene were larger than 19 contemporary male Australian crania. I doubt the contemporary sample included many crania from before the 18th century, so there’s no evidence the brain shrinkage among Australian aboriginals predated colonization.
“No I said scientists think bigger brain + better tools + newer species = smarter genes (all three criteria are considered) and if you don’t believe it, prey tell how anthropologists are so confident that H. Sapiens are genetically smarter than H. Erectus who was genetically smarter than H. Habilis who was genetically smarter than australopithecines? You think they’ve isolated the specific intelligence genes that differentiate these populations? Face it, if HBD is pseudoscience, than the whole field of anthropology is pseudoscience on steroids.”
In fact and according to anthropologists, before behavioral modernity, there is very little evidence that Homo Sapiens is more advanced than contemporary hominids. On the other hand behavioral modernity is not associated with changes in human anatomy.
Because as I said, anthropologists use multiple criteria (technology, brain size, and newness) to assume one population is genetically smarter than another. Before behavioral modernity, our species was only superior on the latter two; after we were superior on all three, so there was no question in the minds of anthropologists.
“Now the conventional criteria could be wrong but my point is there’s a complete double standard caused by political correctness.”
First, that’s not the conventional criteria,
Name a single case other than race where a population with bigger brains, more technology, and newer origin, was considered cognitively equal or inferior to a population that was behind it on all three variables. You can’t, which proves it is the conventional standard.
second the “double standard” is caused by human exceptionalism. Other creatures, don’t have history, culture, socio-economic background, motivation, and other things that make humans humans.
But in the 19th century scientists took it for granted that races differed in intelligence. Only after WWII did such ideas become culturally unacceptable.
Third, you have to prove that IQ is a primarily biologic variable, that you can translate it in terms of hormones, tissue composition, neuro-transmitters and so on.
Well human intelligence evolved did it not? It must have some biological basis. Do you also doubt modern humans are genetically smarter than H. Erectus or do you think that difference too is cultural?
But you’d love more to shown races don’t have the same IQ, then you could continue with the satisfaction of having been right all this time without the stigma of making up things.
I’d be embarrassed that I was wrong, but I would feel liberated that I could fully share my IQ interests with people of all races without making some of them feel offended.
“Never said all newer populations are genetically smarter; newness is just one of three criteria anthropologists consider, because of the tendency for primates to have grown more intelligent over evolutionary time.”
Come on, you’re saying over and over “East Asians are the newest race, hence the most evolved, hence the most progressive”.
I do think they’re the most evolved, but that’s just an indicator of intelligence because sometimes evolution goes backwards.
And that’s not even true, the most divergent populations in the world are the Southern African Bushmen and indigenous Patagonians.
Most divergent from what? Each other? Citation?
“Wrong. If you have two 184 cm Dutch parents, and two 184 cm Peruvian parents, the former will likely have taller kids.”
No, that’s because the former belong to a better fed population of dairy products consumers.
“Two samples that differ by 15 IQ points before incentives, might differ by only 5 IQ points after incentives, but if the effect of the incentives is to shrink the variance in the entire group,”
Do you even read the links I’ve been benevolent to share with you ? What happens in the study is that the samples achieve relatively equal averages after incentives but the SD within each sample remains unchanged (it slightly tends to grow).
“It’s true that brains 28,000 years ago are bigger than brains 100 years ago, but that doesn’t prove the shrinkage began as early as 28,000 years ago. That’s the mistake most sources make.”
Ok, let’s say that I agree. But -10,000 BC is still a long, long time before any agriculture in Europe.
“I doubt the contemporary sample included many crania from before the 18th century, so there’s no evidence the brain shrinkage among Australian aboriginals predated colonization.”
That’s completely implausible that one population loses within 3 centuries what others have lost in millennia.
“Name a single case other than race where a population with bigger brains, more technology, and newer origin, was considered cognitively equal or inferior to a population that was behind it on all three variables.”
Homo florensiensis had a much smaller brain than homo Erectus, it is thought to be its equal if not superior.
Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons had much larger brains than all historical era population. Very few argue that it gave them some intellectual advantages
Inuits have much larger brains than Africans (including empire Building Sahelians or Nubians), no one is saying have a better technological record than Africans.
And so on.
“But in the 19th century scientists took it for granted that races differed in intelligence.”
In the 19th century, they ranked East Asians below Europeans, they discussed things like “The Anglo-Saxon Race”, “the Nordic Race”, “the Alpine Race”. Moreover, they had no knowledge in population genetics or genetics as a whole. You know if we should give credit to all 19th century beliefs we’d live in a very different world today.
“Well human intelligence evolved did it not? It must have some biological basis.”
Sure, but how is it related to IQ ?
“I do think they’re the most evolved”
By more evolved you mean, they are the population that experienced the most genetic change ? If that’s what you do, you’re completely wrong. Their ancestry-informative markers might be newer, but their overall level of genetic diversity (which is what evolution is) is among the lowest on earth.
“Most divergent from what? Each other? Citation?”
From each other
“Wrong. If you have two 184 cm Dutch parents, and two 184 cm Peruvian parents, the former will likely have taller kids.”
No, that’s because the former belong to a better fed population of dairy products consumers.
Regression to the mean is a statistical phenomenon; it tells us nothing about whether a group difference is genetic or environmental. One of the mistakes even leading HBDers make is assuming regression to different means implies group differences are genetic.
“Two samples that differ by 15 IQ points before incentives, might differ by only 5 IQ points after incentives, but if the effect of the incentives is to shrink the variance in the entire group,”
Do you even read the links I’ve been benevolent to share with you ? What happens in the study is that the samples achieve relatively equal averages after incentives but the SD within each sample remains unchanged (it slightly tends to grow).
Given the volume of comments, I hardly have time to read all of them, let alone click on every link. If you could repost the link to the study that would be helpful.
“It’s true that brains 28,000 years ago are bigger than brains 100 years ago, but that doesn’t prove the shrinkage began as early as 28,000 years ago. That’s the mistake most sources make.”
Ok, let’s say that I agree. But -10,000 BC is still a long, long time before any agriculture in Europe.
If you look at 2:05 in the below video (featuring John Hawks, the primary source for the Discovery article everyone cites)
all we know is that by 5000 years ago, brain size in Europe was a lot smaller than it was 10,000 years ago, and agriculture was in Europe by 9000 years ago according to Wikipedia:
roughly between 7000 BCE (the approximate time of the first farming societies in Greece)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Europe
“I doubt the contemporary sample included many crania from before the 18th century, so there’s no evidence the brain shrinkage among Australian aboriginals predated colonization.”
That’s completely implausible that one population loses within 3 centuries what others have lost in millennia.
No it’s extremely plausible, since the brain size shrinkage I’m describing is environmental (malnutrition, disease) not genetic (natural selection). Europeans may have taken thousands of years to adopt this unhealthy lifestyle, but Australian aboriginal lifestyle and health was changed immediately by colonization. Rapid changes are very plausible. The 20th century rise in brain size, height, and IQ scores (Flynn effect) are all examples of rapid phenotype change caused by environment.
“Name a single case other than race where a population with bigger brains, more technology, and newer origin, was considered cognitively equal or inferior to a population that was behind it on all three variables.”
Homo florensiensis had a much smaller brain than homo Erectus, it is thought to be its equal if not superior.
Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons had much larger brains than all historical era population. Very few argue that it gave them some intellectual advantages
Inuits have much larger brains than Africans (including empire Building Sahelians or Nubians), no one is saying have a better technological record than Africans.
Straw man argument:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
I never claimed scientists judged an extinct population’s genetic intelligence by brain size alone. I’ve consistently said they use three criteria (brain size, technology, and newness); and typically only two criteria (brain size and technology). You can’t cite a single exception to my claim because I’m 100% right.
“But in the 19th century scientists took it for granted that races differed in intelligence.”
In the 19th century, they ranked East Asians below Europeans,
The ranking of East Asians has been tricky because of uncertainty over their brain size and because their technology is inferior to the West’s. But blacks were ranked below whites because of smaller brains and less technology.
“Well human intelligence evolved did it not? It must have some biological basis.”
Sure, but how is it related to IQ ?
So you believe intelligence has a biological basis but IQ does not? So how should we measure intelligence if not through IQ? And you still haven’t stated whether you believe modern humans are genetically smarter than H. Erectus or not.
“I do think they’re the most evolved”
By more evolved you mean, they are the population that experienced the most genetic change ? If that’s what you do, you’re completely wrong. Their ancestry-informative markers might be newer, but their overall level of genetic diversity (which is what evolution is) is among the lowest on earth.
They have less diversity precisely because they’re a new population. They’re more evolved in the sense that their genetic phenotype has changed the most from the genetic phenotype of the first modern humans:
“Regression to the mean is a statistical phenomenon; it tells us nothing about whether a group difference is genetic or environmental. One of the mistakes even leading HBDers make is assuming regression to different means implies group differences are genetic.”
It’s a mistake that you have often made and that you’ve just made by saying people regress to the genetic mean of their race.
“Given the volume of comments, I hardly have time to read all of them, let alone click on every link. If you could repost the link to the study that would be helpful.”
Damn…
http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1018601108/-/DCSupplemental/sd01.xlshttp://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1018601108/-/DCSupplemental/sd01.xls
“all we know is that by 5000 years ago, brain size in Europe was a lot smaller than it was 10,000 years ago, and agriculture was in Europe by 9000 years ago according to Wikipedia:
roughly between 7000 BCE (the approximate time of the first farming societies in Greece)”
Agriculture was in greece by 7000 BCE, not in Europe as a whole.
“Europeans may have taken thousands of years to adopt this unhealthy lifestyle, but Australian aboriginal lifestyle and health was changed immediately by colonization.”
The Abo never adopted agriculture though, they caught some imported diseases, their environment might have been destabilized by the introduction and proliferation of imported species but I really doubt it can have had the such an effect on brain size. We would also expect the same thing to have happened with the hunter-gatherers of the Americas.
“and typically only two criteria (brain size and technology). You can’t cite a single exception to my claim because I’m 100% right.”
Homo florensiensis had a much smaller brain than homo erectus but equal or superior technology.
“They have less diversity precisely because they’re a new population. ”
“The ranking of East Asians has been tricky because of uncertainty over their brain size and because their technology is inferior to the West’s.”
That’s where your technology = brain size = newness loses all meaning.
“So how should we measure intelligence if not through IQ? And you still haven’t stated whether you believe modern humans are genetically smarter than H. Erectus or not.”
We should not measure intelligence at all because no one is able to give a universal definition of it nor a reliable way to measure it. It’s like beauty, it’s too subjective to be measured. As far as homo Erectus, that’s an extinct species I don’t know about their intelligence, they might have been good at maths but they didn’t have language so that limited their collective ability to adapt.
“They have less diversity precisely because they’re a new population.”
They have less diversity because they went through more genetic bottlenecks, not because they are newer, which means nothing in the absence of speciation.
“They’re more evolved in the sense that their genetic phenotype has changed the most from the genetic phenotype of the first modern humans:”
Not true, East Asians are closer to Africans than to Europeans on a lot of morphological traits
Moreover, the oldest lineage genetic markers of humanity are found in the Bushmen and these people look like that.
Regression to the mean is a statistical phenomenon; it tells us nothing about whether a group difference is genetic or environmental. One of the mistakes even leading HBDers make is assuming regression to different means implies group differences are genetic.”
It’s a mistake that you have often made and that you’ve just made by saying people regress to the genetic mean of their race.
No, the mistake is assuming regression to the population mean itself is evidence that the population’s mean is genetic, but believing people regress to their genetic mean is not necessarily a mistake at all, anymore than your belief that people regress to their environmental mean is a mistake. The point is the mere phenomenon of regression to the mean is 100% consistent with both genetic and environmental explanations, though some top HBD scientists have mistakenly cited it as evidence for genetics.
Damn…
http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1018601108/-/DCSupplemental/sd01.xlshttp://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1018601108/-/DCSupplemental/sd01.xlshttp://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1018601108/-/DCSupplemental/sd01.xlshttp://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1018601108/-/DCSupplemental/sd01.xls
The link doesn’t seem to work. Perhaps you could tell me what the study was called.
Agriculture was in greece by 7000 BCE, not in Europe as a whole.
7000 BCE = over 9000 years ago, so there was plenty of time for brains to shrink by 5000 years ago, especially if the sampled brains were also taken from Greece (these are convenience samples)
“Europeans may have taken thousands of years to adopt this unhealthy lifestyle, but Australian aboriginal lifestyle and health was changed immediately by colonization.”
The Abo never adopted agriculture though, they caught some imported diseases, their environment might have been destabilized by the introduction and proliferation of imported species but I really doubt it can have had the such an effect on brain size.
Of course it would. They were suffering from disease to the point where the entire Tasmanian aboriginals went extinct. Their hunting lands were taken and they were forced to buy food the white man was selling (agriculture).
We would also expect the same thing to have happened with the hunter-gatherers of the Americas.
It probably did.
“and typically only two criteria (brain size and technology). You can’t cite a single exception to my claim because I’m 100% right.”
Homo florensiensis had a much smaller brain than homo erectus but equal or superior technology.
What’s your point? I’m not claiming there’s a perfect correlation between brain size and technology, I’m saying these are two major criteria scientists use when use judging the genetic intelligence of extinct “human” populations, and if the same standard were applied to extant human populations, the black-white IQ gap would have been settled a long time ago. That doesn’t prove HBD is true, but it does prove it’s consistent with the conventional method used to settle such disputes.
“The ranking of East Asians has been tricky because of uncertainty over their brain size and because their technology is inferior to the West’s.”
That’s where your technology = brain size = newness loses all meaning.
Again, I’m not arguing technology = brain size = newness, I’m arguing that technology, brain size and newness, are three different measures scientists COLLECTIVELY use to rank extinct humans by genetic intelligence. If the same standard were applied to extant human races, whites would outrank blacks because whites outrank blacks by ALL THREE MEASURES!
“So how should we measure intelligence if not through IQ? And you still haven’t stated whether you believe modern humans are genetically smarter than H. Erectus or not.”
We should not measure intelligence at all because no one is able to give a universal definition of it nor a reliable way to measure it.
We can reliably say humans are smarter than chimps and chimps are smarter than cats and cats are smarter than snakes? Can we not?
As far as homo Erectus, that’s an extinct species I don’t know about their intelligence, they might have been good at maths but they didn’t have language so that limited their collective ability to adapt.
Your unwillingness to say H Erectus was genetically dumber than modern humans puts you WAY outside the scientific mainstream and makes you an extremist on this issue.
“They have less diversity precisely because they’re a new population.”
They have less diversity because they went through more genetic bottlenecks, not because they are newer,
The two concepts are related. When a small number of people colonize a new land, you get a genetic bottleneck where diversity becomes extremely limited and must build up again in the new environment. So the less diversity, on average, the less time since the environment was colonized and thus the newer the inhabitants to that region. The fact that blacks showed the most genetic diversity was the first clue that humans have been living in Africa the longest: humans had been in Africa long enough for separate genetic lines to diverge. Not so in parts of the world that were colonized late.
which means nothing in the absence of speciation.
Speciation is just an arbitrary degree of evolutionary change. Race is a subset of species.
“They’re more evolved in the sense that their genetic phenotype has changed the most from the genetic phenotype of the first modern humans:”
Not true, East Asians are closer to Africans than to Europeans on a lot of morphological traits
Negroids are the oldest and most warm adapted of the big three races. Mongoloids are the newest and most cold adapted. Odds are Caucasoids are between these two extremes on most phenotypes.
Moreover, the oldest lineage genetic markers of humanity are found in the Bushmen and these people look like that.
Bushmen are just a divergent form of Negroid.
“but believing people regress to their genetic mean is not necessarily a mistake at all, anymore than your belief that people regress to their environmental mean is a mistake.”
First you said that the mixed race adoptees had to score halfawy between the black mean and the white mean regardless of the IQ of their parents.
Secondly, I said that a genetic hypothesis would lead to the expectation that the kids actually score between their parents, not their parents racial mean. And I made no mention of environment.
“The link doesn’t seem to work. Perhaps you could tell me what the study was called.”
http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2011/04/20/1018601108.DCSupplemental
You will find two download files, one PDF summary, one XLS detailed spreadsheet.
Tasmanian aboriginals went extinct. “Their hunting lands were taken and they were forced to buy food the white man was selling (agriculture).”
That has to be nuanced, the British never had much presence in the Outback or the Northern Territories. That could be plausible for some populations in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria but it’s unlikely that the whole of Australia has been affected.
“What’s your point? I’m not claiming there’s a perfect correlation between brain size and technology,”
You said I couldn’t find a single exception to the brain size – technology that scientists expect in species, I showed you one.
“and if the same standard were applied to extant human populations, the black-white IQ gap would have been settled a long time ago.”
When scientists carry research on the genetic causes of one trait, they go in search for genetic differences, not anatomical proxys. They are currently making lots of discoveries by comparing the genome of Chimpanzees to that of Humans, see for yourself:
“While behavioral genetics compares the genes of people with different abilities, evolutionary biology compares the genes of different species. Researchers use this data to determine what limits other species’ communication skills and what expanded ours so dramatically that language became one of our defining characteristics. Geschwind’s own forays into evolutionary biology have led him to look at DNA in the brains of chimpanzees, monkeys, and even songbirds. “A lot of people think our lab is all over the place,” he says. “It’s actually pretty integrated. Language is complex, and the only way we’re going to have a hit is when two or three findings point to the same place.””
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/409215/the-genetics-of-language/
“We can reliably say humans are smarter than chimps and chimps are smarter than cats and cats are smarter than snakes? Can we not?”
All we can say is that they have different instincts that are relevant in the ecological niche they occupy, intelligence is irrelevant when it comes to animals, all those you cited couldn’t adapt to changes in their ecosystem by using their collective abilities, only humans can do it to a certain extant.
“Your unwillingness to say H Erectus was genetically dumber than modern humans puts you WAY outside the scientific mainstream and makes you an extremist on this issue.”
Dumb and smart are words I’ve never seen in a scientific paper, neither did I see mentions of IQ in evolutionary anthropology or biology. Scientists will easily acknowledge that homo Erectus had lower technological skills, that their brains were smaller but they can’t ascertain this difference is genetic without investigating the actual genetic differences between them and modern Humans.
“Speciation is just an arbitrary degree of evolutionary change.”
Oh no, speciation is the event that causes two groups from a formerly common species to be genetically isolated by infertility, there is nothing arbitrary to that. Race is an arbitrary term for which the field of genetics has no definition.
“The fact that blacks showed the most genetic diversity was the first clue that humans have been living in Africa the longest: humans had been in Africa long enough for separate genetic lines to diverge. Not so in parts of the world that were colonized late.”
But you could send a very small sample of blacks to Antartica, they would show very little diversity their descendants would be greatly uniform in their genomes and you wouldn’t call them “the newest race”.
“Bushmen are just a divergent form of Negroid.”
Bushmen are the ancestral population of humans from which all other lineages diverge, they existed well before being mostly replaced by West African originated Bantus.
but believing people regress to their genetic mean is not necessarily a mistake at all, anymore than your belief that people regress to their environmental mean is a mistake.”
First you said that the mixed race adoptees had to score halfawy between the black mean and the white mean regardless of the IQ of their parents.
Because on AVERAGE the parents would likely be around the average of their race.
“The link doesn’t seem to work. Perhaps you could tell me what the study was called.”
http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2011/04/20/1018601108.DCSupplementalhttp://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2011/04/20/1018601108.DCSupplemental
Doesn’t seem to confirm what you claimed, but at least I know what the study is called now.
Tasmanian aboriginals went extinct. “Their hunting lands were taken and they were forced to buy food the white man was selling (agriculture).”
That has to be nuanced, the British never had much presence in the Outback or the Northern Territories. That could be plausible for some populations in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria but it’s unlikely that the whole of Australia has been affected.
Northern Territory (singular not plural) and the British have had a huge effect there. They run the place. And only 17% of the population of the Outback is indigenous, and the Outback is the crappy land where they have less access to brain nutrients, unlike their ancestors who lived by the sea. Further, not sure what part of Australia the recent crania were sampled from:
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/337/1280/235
“What’s your point? I’m not claiming there’s a perfect correlation between brain size and technology,”
You said I couldn’t find a single exception to the brain size – technology that scientists expect in species, I showed you one.
No I repeatedly said you couldn’t find a single case where an extinct species was superior on BOTH brain size AND technology (as whites are to blacks) yet wasn’t considered genetically smarter.
“and if the same standard were applied to extant human populations, the black-white IQ gap would have been settled a long time ago.”
When scientists carry research on the genetic causes of one trait, they go in search for genetic differences, not anatomical proxys.
But until those genetic causes are found, it’s just assumed that the population with the bigger brain and better technology is genetically smarter. Only exception is race since it’s politically sensitive.
“Your unwillingness to say H Erectus was genetically dumber than modern humans puts you WAY outside the scientific mainstream and makes you an extremist on this issue.”
Dumb and smart are words I’ve never seen in a scientific paper, neither did I see mentions of IQ in evolutionary anthropology or biology.
But the term intelligence is routinely used in scientific papers
Scientists will easily acknowledge that homo Erectus had lower technological skills, that their brains were smaller but they can’t ascertain this difference is genetic without investigating the actual genetic differences between them and modern Humans.
The difference is just ASSUMED to be genetic and I don’t know of a single scientist who has questioned that assumption.
“Speciation is just an arbitrary degree of evolutionary change.”
Oh no, speciation is the event that causes two groups from a formerly common species to be genetically isolated by infertility, there is nothing arbitrary to that. Race is an arbitrary term for which the field of genetics has no definition.
No, modern humans and Neanderthals and H. Erectus are all different species, even though they could all interbreed. The infertility definition turned out to be too strict, so the definition of species is now every bit as arbitrary as the definition of race.
“The fact that blacks showed the most genetic diversity was the first clue that humans have been living in Africa the longest: humans had been in Africa long enough for separate genetic lines to diverge. Not so in parts of the world that were colonized late.”
But you could send a very small sample of blacks to Antartica, they would show very little diversity their descendants would be greatly uniform in their genomes and you wouldn’t call them “the newest race”.
Because the simple act of migration does not make you a different race. Significant evolutionary change must occur too.
“Bushmen are just a divergent form of Negroid.”
Bushmen are the ancestral population of humans from which all other lineages diverge, they existed well before being mostly replaced by West African originated Bantus.
But many have classified them as Negroid. An archaic form of Negroid, but Negroid nonetheless.
“Speciation is just an arbitrary degree of evolutionary change.”
That reminds me, your point on genetic distance in the past from Jensen would be a GRAVE distortion of what Jensen actually said in The g Factor, his first sentence has him agreeing with biologist using neutral DNA to measure distance.
“Modern genetic technology makes it possible to measure the genetic distance between different populations objectively with considerable precision, or statistical reliability.”
Here’s what he said on neutral versus selected DNA.
“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.”
Genetic differences between groups caused by selection, not their relation to each other regarding distance. PP interpreted as that it yielded genetic distance methods through neutral DNA pointless due how they undermine distance. Also, he clearly uses coded DNA as relevant to phenotype rather than distance.
Oh, and remember you couldn’t find data on “selected DNA”?
“The second component (which accounts for 16 percent of the variation) appears to separate the groups climatically, as the groups’ positions on PC2 are quite highly correlated with the degrees latitude of their geographic locations. This suggests that not all of the genes used to determine genetic distances are entirely neutral, but at least some of them differ in allele frequencies to some extent because of natural selection for different climatic conditions. I have tried other objective methods of clustering on the same data (varimax rotation of the principal components, common factor analysis, and hierarchical cluster analysis). All of these types of analysis yield essentially the same picture and identify the same major racial groupings.”
From the G Factor’s section on genetic distance.
“No, modern humans and Neanderthals and H. Erectus are all different species, even though they could all interbreed. The infertility definition turned out to be too strict, so the definition of species is now every bit as arbitrary as the definition of race.”
Source? Allopatric speciation is too strict? How so?
Neanderthals were a subspecies of H. Sapiens.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/our-neandertal-brethren/
There is some debate as to whether they were a distinct species of the Homo genus (Homo neanderthalensis) or a subspecies of Homo sapiens.
http://www.livescience.com/28036-neanderthals-facts-about-our-extinct-human-relatives.html
But no one argues H. Erectus was part of our species, and we could breed with them.
If humans and Neanderthals were a distinct species, then they wouldn’t be able to breed and have fertile offspring.
Humans and Neanderthals bred and had fertile offspring.
Therefore, Humans and Neanderthals are not a distinct species.
Simple.
And Ernst Mayr’s biological species model (allopatric speciation) is the best we have.
If humans and Neanderthals were a distinct species, then they wouldn’t be able to breed and have fertile offspring.
Humans and Neanderthals bred and had fertile offspring.
Therefore, Humans and Neanderthals are not a distinct species.
Circular argument. The fact that only members of the same species can have fertile offspring is what you’re argument is supposed to prove, not the premise that it rests upon.
Simple.
I know you are. That’s the problem.
“Circular argument. The fact that only members of the same species can have fertile offspring is what you’re argument is supposed to prove, not the premise that it rests upon.”
OK let’s try this again.
First, let’s define species:
“… groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups”—Ernst Mayr
When populations become geographically isolated for a period of time, they can only interbreed within their population and can no longer breed with the population they descended from.
Let’s take a population of fish. Let’s say that a meteorite crashes into earth and splits that fish population in half. Over a period of time, those two fish populations will not be able to breed with each other and have fertile offspring. This is how speciation occurs.
That is the definition of species. So, if humans and Neanderthals were a distinct species, then they would not be able to interbreed. That conclusion logically follows from the premise. It’s a valid argument. You now have to point out where it’s wrong by either showing that the premise or conclusion is wrong. If you cannot, you must accept my argument. That’s how this works.
Humans and Neanderthals are different species. If humans and Neanderthals were a different species, then humans and Neanderthals would not be able to interbreed. Humans and Neanderthals can interbreed. Therefore, humans and Neanderthals are different species.
This does not follow using the biological species definition. Your premise is wrong. Your argument is invalid.
Please read a few links on introduction to logic. It’s pretty simple and also really shows points of disagreement in debates/
“I know you are. That’s the problem.”
Let’s keep snide sayings out of this.
https://postimg.org/image/unvukf1vp/
What is interesting is considering the variables that contributed the most to IQ change between childhood and adolescence:
1- Fathers education: .31
2- Age at placement: .25
3- Number of preadoptive placements: -.21
4- Quality of preadoptive placements: .19
4- Biological Father’s Education: .19
6- Biological mother’s race: -.18
7- Biological mother’s education: .12
7- Time in adoptive home: ;12
7- Adoptive mother’s education .12
10- Joint Family income: -.06
11- Adoptive mother’s IQ: -.05
12- Adoptive Father’s occupation: -.03
13- Adoptive father’s IQ: .02
It’s interesting and easy to understand that father’s education and age at placement helped adolescents to retain more of their childhood IQ gains.
Preadoption history as a whole has a huge effect on gain retention
Interestingly, biological father’s education has more effect on retention than biological mother’s education.
Race doesn’t contribute to IQ loss as much as what should be expected if race-related heritability got stronger growing up. It most likely appears to correlate with pre-adoption history.
Adoptive mother education and both adoptive parents IQ have negligible effects on retention.
“Preadoption history as a whole has a huge effect on gain retention”
Why do you think this is the case?
“Why do you think this is the case?”
Dunno, maybe more child-parent attachment, less Freudian-type trauma, more balanced psychological development.
https://www.academia.edu/27102311/Predicting_educational_achievement_from_DNA
There’s a genetic study. 60% heredity of education achievement.
“60% heredity of education achievement.”
It’s heritability, not heredity. The two are very different.
Education and intelligence are yet two different notions.
But heavily correlated.
Correlates of correlates…
IQ was first developed as a measure of educability, and was widely used for that, and in the early days, researchers assumed that IQ was more llresistant to environmental effects than school exams were. So it’s interesting that heritability of educational achieveement is higher than that for IQ.
Mac is a great musician. Classic schizotypal. Love him.
Are you a chav?
The Black-White IQ gap, for me, is beating a dead horse. You have to strain to find an ever-more expanding set of assumptions about social conditions and their effect on the black mind in order to justify the belief that there’s not at least some genetic difference, I am therefore guilty of taking at this point as an assumption that at least part of the gap is genetic.
I am also convinced that creating a perfect test is difficult to impossible because we can deduce that IQ will have an effect on the social conditions that you create for yourself meaning that if it is the case that mine and the general HBD milieus assumption is correct then blacks will produce for themselves the conditions that further entrench and widen the IQ gap and attempting to control for this and shield them from their own milieu will yield its own problems, our closest attempts (Like the Transracial study) have been criticised thusly “No, significan differences remain in their pre-adoption experiences and adoptive family SES.”
Far more interesting is the result in this study that non-adopted white kids have an average IQ of 105, close to the “Real” Jewish IQ of 107 that PP has surmised previously from some of the data, which begs the question that under the right social conditions are whites and Jews so far similar, and does white Spacial IQ compensate for verbal deficits on general tests? I suspect not and that this is just an outlier, and I suspect that finding out whether what I’m saying is true or not would be frought with many of the same problems I’ve described in rigorously testing for a black-white IQ gap.
Afrosapiens is doing what we call in the trade ‘sandbagging’. He knows the truth but is continually lifting the bar and being autistic like in his demands of language so that he can shield his own ego.
The flip side is one can turn it around and ask him to prove blacks have rather similar IQs to whites.
And then sandbag him.
He’s right to some extent or another, social milieu clearly effects the physiology of your brain and thus your computational (intellectual) abilities. The trouble is that the black-white gap is so enormously wide relative to even other racial IQ gaps that you have to “Get creative” or, in other words, violate Occam’s razor, one of our best heuristics to create even more possible effects that could explain the retardation of black intellectual development when the genetic explanation is far more simple and explains the gap very smoothly and falls in line with what we know about for example, the development of civilization and other more rigorous evidence.
You’d have a much more easy job trying to assert that the 2-5 point gap between Whites and Asians was due to greater consumption of fish and thus all of the intellectual nourishment that grants or some such nonsense.
Not only that but he purposefully ignored my observation that the gap is the same in different environments.
As in the UK, Brazil, South Africa and I assume in various US states with different wealth levels, AA measures and public schooling quality.
If you can’t prove A by induction.
Prove A by deduction.
In this case A is proven by both, but he is sandbagging.
Nothing in science supports a genetic explanation for the gap, the gap is not even that wide everywhere. Most HBD is flawed, unreplicated and based on outdated data See the studies here are from before the 90’s, that’s freaking old in science, same for the Pioneer Fund’s estimates.
It’s only speculations upon correlations that were found without ways to satisfyingly control for confounding factors.
Heritability is one thing, norms of reaction are an other. As I often said here, psychology is not even the science of cognitive development, neuroscience has authority in that matter. Psychologist have no damn clue on how the brain works.
I’m not “being creative”, I’m not making things up. Motivation, nutrition, pollution and many other factors are well studied by researchers that study intelligence in general, not just between group gaps. No scientist will ever dwell on a genetic hypothesis as long as the genes of intelligence and how they vary between races remain unknown.
>It’s only speculations upon correlations that were found without ways to satisfyingly control for confounding factors.
I’ll acknowledge that this is the case, but as I’ve delineated above, controlling for said confounding factors is very difficult, and frought with all kinds of problems.
>I’m not “being creative”
Don’t take that as an insult, although it was a little tongue in cheek I admit. It’s perfectly valid to suppose all of these things as at least partial explanations for the condition of the average black mind, however it seems to me to be more in line with Occams razor to assume an explanation that, on it’s own, explains a huge portion of the IQ gap easily and readily subject to further more refined and exact genetic and sociological investigation.
Occams razor is, however, just a heuristic I freely admit.
“As in the UK, Brazil, South Africa and I assume in various US states with different wealth levels, AA measures and public schooling quality.”
That’s not true, blacks in the UK score in the mid 90s
South Africa has many types of blacks and whites don’t even score 100 there. Few representative studies have been carried out of the West anyway.
In the United states, the gap is the same is the same everywhere, irrespective of the local level of white admixture among blacks. If IQ or social success has something to do with African and European ancestry, West Virginian blacks should be at the top, South Carolinians at the bottom.
The only way you can prove the hereditarian hypothesis is showing that this allele gives that iq boost to Europeans.
“Don’t take that as an insult, although it was a little tongue in cheek I admit. It’s perfectly valid to suppose all of these things as at least partial explanations for the condition of the average black mind, however it seems to me to be more in line with Occams razor to assume an explanation that, on it’s own, explains a huge portion of the IQ gap easily and readily subject to further more refined and exact genetic and sociological investigation.”
That’s still better than hereditarians who can’t even cite one allele that has any contribution to the gap.
See, there are some well replicated environmental factors that influence IQ.
-Lead eposure : -6 IQ points
-Lack of motivation: -20 points for people scoring in the 80s
-BPA exposure: -4 points
-Iron deficiency: -8 points
Total for these few factors: 38, the Black-White gap is only 39% of the sum. Is it likely that blacks are 39% more likely to be disadvantaged relative to whites in all those factors. Yes it is, they have more than 200% the poverty rate of whites.
“See, there are some well replicated environmental factors that influence IQ.”
See
“He’s right to some extent or another, social milieu clearly effects the physiology of your brain and thus your computational (intellectual) abilities.”
I’d like to see rigorous evidence that blacks suffer from all of these conditions you’ve described at a general enough level that it affects population IQ statistics, if you’re willing to provide it.
I’d especially like you to cite the lack of motvation claim to support it’s legitimacy, that one seems to me to be the most doubtful.
Motivation effect on IQ in detail
http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1018601108/-/DCSupplemental/sd01.xls
I’ve accessed the original studies and all samples initially in the 70s or 80s were black.
“I’d like to see rigorous evidence that blacks suffer from all of these conditions you’ve described at a general enough level that it affects population IQ statistics, if you’re willing to provide it.”
Whether it’s blacks on average suffering 39% more from these conditions or 39% of blacks getting 100% of the loss due to all these factors, anyway, the sum is just something I quickly made up (I’ve been creative this time). But I could also have added preterm birth -10 points, exposure to violence -9 points, bringing the sum to 57 et reducing the Black-White IQ to 26% of the total. No if it seems unreasonable to you that blacks are 26% to 39% more likely to experience these factors, there’s little more I can say. But I guess it’s plausible to most people.
Every trait is caused by a combination of both genetic and varying environmental factors. You know, when doctors cite the risk factors for cancer or diabetes, they sound as “creative” as me. The role of population genetics in the frequency of some traits between different groups is also acknowledged but scientists have the very genetic alleles to back this up.
Something’s wrong in my maths lol.
Actually what I say would mean that on average and relative to whites blacks lose
-1.5 points to lead exposure
-5.2 points to motivation
-1 point to BPA exposure
-2.1 points to Iron deficiency
-2.6 points to preterm birth
-2.6 points to exposure to violence
Incidentally, I propose that PP revise his definition of intelligence.
I find that it’s elegant but the mental ability to adapt does not well-describe the mechanisms at play in intelligence as such.
What I mean by this is the capacities tested by IQ tests and, more loosely academic subjects that are highly correlated with IQ are computational, however abstract said computation may be.
Adaptation on the other hand is more a question of psychological factors other than simple computation. One may have poor computational faculties but adapt more quickly due to interest, intent, observational heuristics developed and so forth.
I suggest that the person with the greatest brain, in terms of computation, may be ill-equipped to, by faults or abberations of personality, adapt to circumstances that are outside of their areas of expertise, interest, or social conditions.
If PP were to adjust it to say
“Computational power thus giving them to ability to adapt within a psychological field of concentration or awareness” that would probably be closer to the mechanism at hand.
Yeah but IQ measures verbal as well or as I call it ‘theoretical common sense’.
And verbal is more g loaded than computation.
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?170141-Why-are-Verbal-tasks-more-g-loaded-than-Math-Quantitative-tasks
Philosophy students and classics students are going to do ok in math topics.
But comp science and engineering are going to write retarded comments like yours.
>And verbal is more g loaded than computation.
Unless you subscribe to a bizarre non-physicalist interpretation of intelligence you’d realize that when I am talking about computation, I am talking about the whole of the intellect – including the verbal.
I’m not surprised you missed that context clue, though.
And Verbal IQ doesn’t wholly account for the personality traits I’m describing either, or much at all.
In fact I think you misapprehended the direction of my comment, perhaps all my comments to date. The ability to instantly apprehend the description presented to you from the semantic field in it and the connotations thereof is part of verbal IQ.
Your verbal is so low.
A better word would have been cognitive.
Pattern recognition and category logic are not:
“The action of mathematical calculation”
(Oxford)
>Your verbal is so low.
>A better word would have been cognitive.
Your pedantry and inability to gather from context clues make your comment ironic beyond belief.
“>W-well you could have made it clearer”
Is basically what you’re trying to say and save face doing, but you know and I know that you just missed the semantic field.
Oblivious.
Gypsyman, you might find this post relevant, especially the block quotes by Jensen
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/pumpkinperson.com/2015/01/24/is-intelligence-the-mental-ability-to-adapt/amp/?client=safari
No your word choice is just poor.
Well, I agree with Jensen’s latter comment.
The problem with your very elegant definition, is that you end up throwing factors of personality (Mediated by computational power though they may be) in with said computational power.
If you’re comfortable with intelligence also encompassing aspects of personality or circumstance or attention in your definition then I’m not particularly bothered, but if we’re merely talking about the physical abilities that allow you to perform tasks to adapt well when you are so inclined, it would be prudent to seperate intelligence from the factors of personality that also influence adaptation to circumstances.
And, for Phil, the reason I chose “computation” as my term was to clearly delineate reasoning from factors of personality, and to closer associate it semantically with the more easily analysed computer and make it convenient to draw allegories from the comparison.
Again.
P1: Intelligence is *not* the “ability to adapt” because non-intelligent life ‘adapts’ to their surroundings just as well, if not better, than intelligent life does.
P2: If intelligence were the ability to adapt, only intelligent organisms would be around.
P3: Intelligent organisms are not the only organisms around.
Therefore, intelligence is not the ability to adapt.
>because non-intelligent life ‘adapts’ to their surroundings just as well, if not better, than intelligent life does.
This is pedantry, the implication (And often made explicit by PP and others) is that the adaptation is by the mind to intellectual problems.
In this way the mind can be seen as a tool of adaptation necessary for dealing with complex circumstances and systems.
An amoeba, for example, could not properly adapt to the sophisticated human social structure due it its lack of a brain and thus problem-solving abilities.
Different consequences of different evolutional paths result in different strategies for adaptation, the human strategy for adaptation is computational power.
The problem with your very elegant definition, is that you end up throwing factors of personality (Mediated by computational power though they may be) in with said computational power.
Your personality is largely what you are adapting to. If you have a greedy personality your intelligence adapts to it by figuring out how to make money. Intelligence is just problem solving but our wants & desires are the problems it solves
>If you have a greedy personality your intelligence adapts to it by figuring out how to make money.
Let me describe why this example supports me very well.
Such a person may not score particularly well on a standardized IQ test, or perform particularly well in school and yet they will perform fabulously well within the field of their awareness and intentionality (Money, greed).
The problem with claiming that Intellgence is “The Ability to adapt” is that this is too general, the ABILITY of the above example person to apply the powers of mind that enable them to perform quick-witted advantageous transactions in business to for example mathematics may be there, but the INTENTIONALITY is not.
If something is simply not within your intellectual FOV due to confounding factors of personality, your ABILITY will not be applied in its direction.
Such a person may not score particularly well on a standardized IQ test, or perform particularly well in school and yet they will perform fabulously well within the field of their awareness and intentionality (Money, greed).
True, but if life success were a perfect measure of cognitive adaptability, we wouldn’t need IQ tests. In real life different people have different goals, different opportunities and different non-cognitive traits, and compete only in one given society, so it’s never going to be a controlled and comprehensive measure, and given all these confounds, it’s truly amazing that the correlation between IQ and money is as high as it is.
Now if everyone could have their personality altered so that we all had the same goals and incentive structure, the correlation between IQ and money (or any other measure of success) would be much higher.
What an IQ test tries to do is STANDARDIZE the goals so they are the same for everyone, and level the playing field by minimizing non-cognitive factors. The examiner explicitly tells you your goal is to adapt the position of the blocks to make a specific design, and you have a time limit of only 3 minutes so differences in motivation don’t have enough time to surface. Then they ask you to adapt the order of cartoon pictures to tell a logical story, etc. You can think of each subtest on an IQ test as a different environment you have to adapt to, and the better you can adapt to the greatest number of environments, the higher your full-scale Wechsler IQ. This is very artificial of course. In real life intelligence never operates in such controlled situations, but in science, you have to isolate intelligence from all the confounds you mention (to the degree possible).
>True, but if life success were a perfect measure of cognitive adaptability
In saying this you admit to my definition.
>we wouldn’t need IQ tests. In real life different people have different goals, different opportunities and different non-cognitive traits, and compete only in one given society
That’s why I’m saying to account for it in our definition, for the sake of precision.
>What an IQ test tries to do is STANDARDIZE the goals so they are the same for everyone, and level the playing field by minimizing non-cognitive factors. The examiner explicitly tells you your goal is to adapt the position of the blocks to make a specific design
It doesn’t standardize the goals, though. Because it doesn’t standardize the inclination of the user.
It might TRY to.
Anyway, this is more pedanticism.
We’ve already establish between us that we agree that personality traits are a mediating factor in intelligence/computational ability.
In saying this you admit to my definition.
I think we agree, it’s just a matter of semantics. I define intelligence as the mental ability to adapt, but I agree it’s an ambiguous definition. But then no purely verbal definition of intelligence has ever gained consensus. But as long we all agree on how to measure intelligence, the definition is irrelevant.
Another semantic issue, when I say “mental ability to adapt”, that AUTOMATICALLY excludes personality from the definition, if one subscribes to Jensen’s work, which makes a very clear, scientific distinction between mental ABILITIES and personality traits. Personality traits are never abilities in Jensen’s jargon, but if you come from a different school of thought, that could be ambiguous.
established*
I think if “Ability to Adapt” is the definition, personality is a factor.
It’s clearly a semantic issue but I think my terminology allows for more precise and intuitive descriptions that don’t allow for linguistic pitfalls as frequently.
“mental adaptability” is just the short-form. The longer more precise version of the definition I outlined in June was:
the brain’s ability to use whatever body it’s in as a tool to use whatever environment it’s in as a tool to minimize the cost-benefit ratio of whatever incentive structure it has
https://pumpkinperson.com/2016/06/29/master-blaster-the-definition-of-intelligence/
PP,
It seems I’ve changed my stance on that since June. I forgot about that comment.
“minimize the cost-benefit ratio of whatever incentive structure it has”
This is legit, if inelegant.
““Computational power thus giving them to ability to adapt within a psychological field of concentration or awareness””
Is equally descriptive and more intuitive.
Remember this is PURE semantics and describes the exact same shit.
More elegant still “The Brain’s computational powers mediated by personality”
I think the definition of HUMAN intelligence is the ability to acquire information and use it to adapt to particular circumstances. It can’t just be ability to adapt, all living things have some ability to adapt to their ecological niche.
But my contribution to this discussion is just done to get some attention about some conversations that are still on hold above.
Actually, I found that my way of estimating contributions to the gap is far more accurate than what ever PP has never said on that topic.
For instance, given that given white children have a 12% poverty rate and black children have 36%, for a 15 IQ points gap to be explained by this 24% gap in poverty, the sum of child-poverty-related factors must depress IQ by 62.5 points.
However, if the gap is 100% genetic and blacks are 80% African, African ancestry must depreciate IQ by 18.75 points and African Americans get a 3.75 IQ points boost from European ancestry. But blacks in the UK score 94 all while being more than 90% African, so that would imply African ancestry depresses IQ by just 6,66 points at most.
Anyways, could people I was talking with get back on our conversations ?
“Your verbal is so low.
A better word would have been cognitive.”
He was referring to computationalism:
Click to access Computationalism_in_the_Philosophy_of_Mind.pdf
“Such a person may not score particularly well on a standardized IQ test, or perform particularly well in school and yet they will perform fabulously well within the field of their awareness and intentionality (Money, greed).
The problem with claiming that Intellgence is “The Ability to adapt” is that this is too general, the ABILITY of the above example person to apply the powers of mind that enable them to perform quick-witted advantageous transactions in business to for example mathematics may be there, but the INTENTIONALITY is not.
If something is simply not within your intellectual FOV due to confounding factors of personality, your ABILITY will not be applied in its direction.”
Pumpkin already said that the williningness to adapt=/= equal the mental ability to adapt. Using your example of this imaginary greedy person, despite the fact that they are greedy they are still able to succeed in life using compensational mental habits. It doesn’t matter if the intention was there or not, the actual potential was always there..
>equal the mental ability to adapt.
How is a factor of personality, or a willingness, in your terms, that enables one to adapt to present circumstance with more ease not a “Mental ability to adapt”
I’m presenting an elegant way to delineate exactly what it is we’re talking about when we’re talking about intelligence away from the confounding factors I’ve described.
Igotto
Ah, didn’t know about such a concept.
“And, for Phil, the reason I chose “computation” as my term was to clearly delineate reasoning from factors of personality, and to closer associate it semantically with the more easily analysed computer and make it convenient to draw allegories from the comparison”
But it looks like he was using it in a metaphorical sense.
This is what happens when medium IQ verbals sandbag the thread. Everything devolves into semantics…..
Because
They have no logic.
Thus we get:
1. Blacks do bad cos they don’t get enough Oscars
2. Penis Size is the same because my single inductive study is better than your inductive studies….and here’s a link to my single study for you to disprove.
I met a lot of these types in London.
They never make money.
They never get laid.
They lie to themselves.
First, almost organisms don’t adapt, in the way we are educated to believe, they submit to the environment in subconscious way and the luck will decide what will be those who are more fittest to the particular environment,
Second, psychological traits ARE NOT completely different than cognitive traits but a continuum between them. When people talk about ”psychological trait” they tend to under-valuate it as ”less-related to the intelligence”, while it’s not the true truth,
Third, based on the idea of ”adaptability” or better, subconscious and lucky/ succesful submission to the particular environment, intelligence = behavior itself. None of us is purely stupid, what really differentiate us is our luck levels to the fitness to the particular or broader environment,
So based on your pet-concept of intelligence, intelligence will varies enourmously and yesterday a phd will be the smartest and tomorrow a thug-life individual will be the smartest…. and it’s not the exactly the reality, based on organic roots of intelligence.
So while i agree that intelligence is also the ability to ”adapt”, because their naturally broader concept and diverse expression, intelligence will not to be only OR specially your pet-concept.
http://sacsis.org.za/a/image.php?i=2015/06/24108d6f698b95cc9f3710722fc985362ffc.jpg&min=2&w=300&h=300
The ”smartest” one of THAT day**
”Ability to adapt” is related with particular environment needs AND not with intelligence/being itself.
“But it looks like he was using it in a metaphorical sense.”
I was using it in a very well-defined sense to describe specific and measurable phenomena, but continue to try to save face, please.
>This is what happens when medium IQ verbals sandbag the thread
The best example we have of your verbal IQ is your obliviousness to the way in which I was using my terms despite me giving a semantic field that easily connoted the sense I was using it in.
Bluntly I think either your verbal is mediocre-high or you’re an outright charlatan posing as a high verbal because of maths envy.
And, for PP:
If we take Intelligence to be defined as “The mental ability to adapt” I can conclude that people who are confounded by factors of personality or otherwise, because they are no longer ABLE to adapt (If you are prevented from whatever reason from adaptation, you are self-evidently no longer able to do so), are less intelligent.
Yes I understand from context that when you and I talk about “Mental ability to adapt” we both mean power of mind, but when dealing with definitions you have to be precise and explanatorily powerful for what you are describing.
My definition: “The Brain’s computational powers mediated by personality”
Describes what we are measuring (The Brain’s computational powers) and explains how that interacts with the world (Mediated by personality)
And, for PP:
If we take Intelligence to be defined as “The mental ability to adapt” I can conclude that people who are confounded by factors of personality or otherwise, because they are no longer ABLE to adapt (If you are prevented from whatever reason from adaptation, you are self-evidently no longer able to do so), are less intelligent.
But just because you can’t adapt doesn’t mean you have low adaptability, it might just mean you have a more difficult problem to adapt to. For example if I LOVE junk food, and HATE exercise, yet want to be a super model, not amount of adaptability will allow me to meet my goals, because my goals are mutually exclusive. It’s my personality that’s maladaptive, not my ABILITY.
PP,
what may save your pet-theory is
”smarter” people can adapt in whatever environment while less ”smart” ones tend to be more dependend from particular environment, why**
because ”smarter” ones can think more purely in pattern or to recognize them while the most stupid of all tend to become submerged or dependent from certain culture he or she just internalize without any intellectual effort to understand why and how they would to live in other ways.
John Von Neumann for example, via confounding factors of personality was not ever able to learn to drive well. This is not a deficit of his brains power to reason, however.
““mental ability to adapt”, that AUTOMATICALLY excludes personality from the definition, if one subscribes to Jensen’s work, which makes a very clear, scientific distinction between mental ABILITIES and personality traits.”
That would make so far as I can see Jensen’s understanding of the word “Able” analogous to “Computationally powerful” in my definition.
“The Computational power to adapt” but not necessarily “The ability to do so” in more ordinary terms, which includes factors of personality.
I don’t disagree with Jensen but I still believe that the definiton that you are using is less descriptively powerful than mine which as you can see: “well-describe the mechanisms at play in intelligence as such.” Was my goal here.
>It’s my personality that’s maladaptive, not my ABILITY.
If you are inhibited from performing the task of adaptation, you are unable to do so.
Personality is a mental factor of ability to adapt that mediates for your calculative prowess.
If you are inhibited from performing the task of adaptation, you are unable to do so.
The full definition, as it was originally told to me was: “The ability to adapt: to take whatever situation you’re in and turn it around to your advantage”
So just because one can’t adapt to one’s own situation, doesn’t mean one can’t adapt to WHATEVER situation, because maybe one could do a brilliant job adapting to someone else’s situation. Carl Rove was famously called Bush’s brain because he would come up with strategies that would adapt the situation to Bush’s political advantage, even though Rove could never make himself President.
It’s like if I defined height as the ability to reach whatever top shelf you see, and then some smart ass came along and said “my top shelf is ten feet high. I can’t reach it. Are you saying I’m short?”
It’s understood that no one, however tall, can reach ALL top shelves, and no one, however smart, can adapt to all situations or solve all problems. Implicit in the definition is an assumption that whatever top shelf or whatever situation, is an aggregate of all top shelves and all situations.
“calculative prowess.”
I’m being lazy here, comptuational ability. I’m talking about the brain as a computer anyhow.
The gist of my suggestion is that
1. We’re now describing the actual mechanism, not what it does (Allows you to adapt/solve problems)
2. We explain how it interacts with reality and thus easily explain people who have high power of mind and yet poor life outcomes.
1. We’re now describing the actual mechanism, not what it does (Allows you to adapt/solve problems)
There are several ways of defining something. You can define it by what it is and you can define it by what it does. A knife is a sharp weapon or a piece of cutlery. OR a knife is what we cut and stab with. When a concept is as abstract as intelligence, I find a functional definition makes it nice and concrete.
But there are different levels of analysis. At the biological level intelligence is the size, complexity, efficiency and speed of the brain, among other things. On the psychometric level intelligence is the ability to reason abstractly, among other things. And on the behavioral level intelligence is the ability to adapt situations to your advantage. Because my blog focuses on Darwinism, race, money, and power, the last definition is a better fit for most of my themes, but everyone has to ADAPT the definition of intelligence to their own goals.
“For example if I LOVE junk food, and HATE exercise, yet want to be a super model, not amount of adaptability will allow me to meet my goals, because my goals are mutually exclusive. It’s my personality that’s maladaptive, not my ABILITY”
Kids who lack Self-control are more prone to obesity, however, willpower has nothing to do with it.
http://www.drsharma.ca/obesity-is-not-about-lack-of-willpower
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/06/you-cant-willpower-your-way-to-lasting-weight-loss/488801/
The problem isn’t willpower.
Exercise doesn’t induce weight loss PP. Diet does. But dieting changes metabolism. It’s why I recommend that people don’t stay in an extended deficit for too long.
We aren’t adopted to eating processed garbage and carbs the way we do. Why do you think disease has increased in 50 years? Shitty diets.
I’ve worked with people who love junk food and hate exercise. I’ve had numerous people change their body’s with my methods. I’m pretty good at my job.
But yea, willpower had nothing to do with obesity. Read some books in obesity please. That’s one of my fortes.
Please read up on obesity and nutrition science before you talk about it. Thank you.
>It’s like if I defined height as the ability to reach whatever top shelf you see
If you were 6’5″ and bedridden, you couldn’t reach any kind of shelf.
The consequence of your height that normally allows you to solve that problem is inhibited by circumstance.
In the same way, the ability to solve problems is a consequence of processing power and, once said processing power is inhibited your ability to solve problems will be consequently inhibited.
>It’s understood that no one, however tall, can reach ALL top shelves
And it’s understood that no one, no matter how intelligent can solve all problems or adapt to all situations.
What I’m saying is account for this in your definition and WHY that is so.
Both I and you understand, via context, what implicature your definition relies on but the problem is in needing to explain all of this implicature when you could elegantly define and powerfully describe without needing to.
It can also have the consequence of being misleading, one might be mislead to believe that because John Von Neumann failed to adapt to driving this is some fault of his intellectual faculties, when it is in all probability not.
It’s not a perfect definition; a less misleading, but equally brief definition is “intelligence is the (mental) ability to problem solve”. I prefer to define intelligence as the (mental) ability to adapt; but when it’s misunderstood or misleading, I substitute “problem solve” for “adapt”.
“Because my blog focuses on Darwinism”
How many books by Darwinists and Darwin have you actually read?
“At the biological level intelligence is the size, complexity, efficiency and speed of the brain, among other things.”
Allows for
“On the psychometric level intelligence is the ability to reason abstractly, among other things.”
“The ability to adapt: to take whatever situation you’re in and turn it around to your advantage”
And part of that is psychological, rather than intellectual as I’ve pointed out and I doubt you’d disagree with.
I mean I’d be happy to take “Mental ability” to mean “Computational ability to the exclusion of personal factors which may influence the overall ability to adapt” but why word it such that it requires further explanation?
Semantics matter when it comes to definitions.
I mean I’d be happy to take “Mental ability” to mean “Computational ability to the exclusion of personal factors which may influence the overall ability to adapt” but why word it such that it requires further explanation?
That’s a little long winded. I use mental ability instead of computational ability or cognitive ability because it’s less syllables, but you seem to feel mental is too broad a term because it includes personality. However personality is not an ability per Jensen. Also, if you’re going to argue personality factors influence adaptation, then why stop there? Physical and environmental factors do too. It comes down to a question of what is doing the adapting and what is being adapted to. I include personality in the latter category.
But when confusion comes over adaptability, simply define intelligence as the part of the brain that computes solutions to whatever problem the organism is faced with or simply, the part of the brain that consciously solves problems.
PumpkinPerson,
Let’s take a low IQ person who’s a prepper. Then let’s take a high IQ person who’s an academic. Society breaks down due to an asteroid impact. Who would be more likely to survive and “adapt” to non-societal life? The low IQ prepper or the high IQ academic?
Or let’s just take a low IQ person who knows how to live without having too much versus a high IQ academic that is used to living lavishly. The low IQ person has no prepper experience. An asteroid impact destroys society. Who would be more likely to survive? The one who needs a societal structure to survive and eat or the one who can live off of scraps and the land? Who would be more likely to “adapt” in this situation?
>I include personality in the latter category.
But personality is what causes us to conscientiously adapt to the world that we are aware of. Intentionality DOES that.
>then why stop there? Physical and environmental factors do too.
Sure, you can generalize it out to “Circumstances” if you like, but my division lies at the line of conscientiousness.
>I use mental ability instead of computational ability or cognitive ability because it’s less syllables, but you seem to feel mental is too broad a term because it includes personality.
I’m comfortable to accept Jensen’s jargon within its context, but in a more general sense “Personality” IS an ability in that it makes it easier for you to adapt more quickly and effectively to certain circumstances.
I doubt Jensen would disagree with me and see no need to explain things already easily described in plain English within the context of a Jargon at all.
But personality is what causes us to conscientiously adapt to the world that we are aware of. Intentionality DOES that.
What causes us to adapt is separate from the ability to adapt just like what causes us to use any computer is separate from the computer’s ability to compute. Intelligence is just a problem solving computer, but it’s our wants and desires that are the problems that it solves. So personality, and other aspects of our incentive structure are not part of our ability to adapt, but without them, there’s nothing to adapt to, no goals to reach, no problems to solve. Your intelligence is just a slave to your feelings (emotions, physical desires, personality, etc) just like any other computer you own is.
>Who would be more likely to survive and “adapt” to non-societal life? The low IQ prepper or the high IQ academic?
I’ll answer on Pumplestiltskin’s behalf:
When we talk about intelligence we talk about ability, yes the conditions for the prepper to survive and adapt to this new world would be there, but all other things being equal the intelligent person would still have greater ABILITY to solve any given problems.
What you’re showing is once again intellligence, or talent, is mediated by personality/inclination.
It’s not necessarily that they will adapt, it’s that they have greater ability in terms of their brain to reason abstractly and thus if they wanted to, they could also apply that power in this direction also.
>What causes us to adapt is separate from the ability to adapt just like what causes us to use any computer is separate from the computer’s ability to compute.
If we did not have cause to adapt we would not be able (Have no ability) to act.
Ultimately our brain computer’s intentions are another form of computation that initiate another computation. Two different categories of computation that are part of our ability to adapt.
Intelligence can be thought of as the method through which we solve problems we are incentivised to solve, but all of this together is our ability to adapt.
Without either we would not be able to solve or adapt.
>Your intelligence is just a slave to your feelings (emotions, physical desires, personality, etc) just like any other computer you own is.
How Kurzweilian of you.
If we did not have cause to adapt we would not be able (Have no ability) to act.
That’s like saying if a DVD player doesn’t have a DVD to play, it’s unable to play DVDs or if a car doesn’t have a driver, it’s unable to drive. On a completely literal level, yes, but if you tried to use that excuse to get your money back on the purchase, they’d look at you like you’re crazy because the function of the DVD player is to play the DVDs, not provide them, and the function of intelligence is to solve our problems, not supply the problems to be solved.
Ultimately our brain computer’s intentions are another form of computation that initiate another computation. Two different categories of computation that are part of our ability to adapt.
The way I see it is that we have two computers in our brains: The one that solves the problems and the one that creates them. A person could have an IQ of 200, but if he has no problems because the problem creating part of his brain malfunctioned, he’s not going to adapt because he has nothing to adapt to. But having nothing to adapt to is arguably different from being unable to adapt, is it not?
How Kurzweilian of you.
Never read him, but good to know someone famous came to some of the same conclusions I have.
Intelligence can be thought of as the method through which we solve problems we are incentivised to solve, but all of this together is our ability to adapt.
The way I see it, intelligence is the part of the brain that adapts to our incentive structure, but our incentive structure itself has evolved to adapt to our genetic “goals”. That is we crave money, sex, power, food, friends, racial solidarity, etc, because all of those things help us replicate our genes, and then our intelligence figures out how to get those things. But the same behavior can be adaptive at the personal level (achieving our goals), but maladaptive at the evolutionary level, because our personal goals don’t serve our genetic goals because our incentive structure’s pathological. So intelligence can be thought of as an adaptive system within an adaptive system and we must distinguish the subset from the superset.
“but all other things being equal the intelligent person would still have greater ABILITY to solve any given problems.”
Such as similar skill sets with the only difference being intelligence? Except, things are never equal like that. Controlling for IQ, for instance with emigration, shows this this and that ameliorated. But how many immigrants have IQs at the controlled for level?
Let’s take Mike, a farmer from the South and Bob, a professor at some university. Asteroid, societal breakdown, etc. Who would be better able to survive?
“What you’re showing is once again intellligence, or talent, is mediated by personality/inclination.”
I agree. Our personalities are largely heritable. It’s also mediated on the environment that one is in. And that environment that the prepper is in is why he’s a prepper (well, one reason anyway). The other guy is where he is because of his intelligence. So both got to where they are today using different skills.
“It’s not necessarily that they will adapt, it’s that they have greater ability in terms of their brain to reason abstractly and thus if they wanted to, they could also apply that power in this direction also.”
Without any previous knowledge on prepping, do you think the high IQ guy would outperform the low IQ guy? I strongly doubt it. Because he’d be out of his comfort zone whereas the low IQ guy is right at home.
When SHTF, all of the hillbillys down south will be in a much better spot than us Yankees who don’t know how to do any type of prepping or survival.
Going back to what philisopher said yesterday, high IQ is good for regular industrial society, but during a societal breakdown, who will survive? The idiot or the genius? The low testosterone person or the high testosterone person?
Do you think the high IQ person would be able to know how to build a shelter or whatnot? Just like the low IQ person wouldn’t be able to do anything in banking, the high IQ person would get eaten by the wolves extremely quickly.
Not even talking in terms of fighting and whatnot—THAT is survival. A group of high test low IQ dolts vs a group of low test high IQ geniuses, who would win? My money is on the high test dolts. It’s clear as day that without society, the high IQ people will get eaten alive.
“How is a factor of personality, or a willingness, in your terms, that enables one to adapt to present circumstance with more ease not a “Mental ability to adapt”
Willingness is a side effect of intelligence, if you are intelligent you are probably more motivated to try and succeed. The question was in pertinence to what hinders mental adaptation not what enables it. There are independent physical attributes that enables one’s adaptation like good looks or height, but it is not a cognitive trait.
“John Von Neumann for example, via confounding factors of personality was not ever able to learn to drive well. This is not a deficit of his brains power to reason, however.”
No shit that’s kind of our point. You adding that second part to the definition is unnecessary. It would be more efficient to simply replace the word “ability” with “potential”.
>and the function of intelligence is to solve our problems, not supply the problems to be solved.
Not even what I’m disputing.
I’m not conflating Personality with Intelligence, both are seperate categories. Both are involved in the process of problem solving.
In the same way, yes, if there was no DVDs any given DVD player would be irrelevant. I’m not disputing the abilities of the DVD player in and of itself, in the same way that I don’t dispute that if JVN put his mind to it he could have learned to drive extremely well
>But having nothing to adapt to is arguably different from being unable to adapt, is it not?
Being unaware of/having no desire to solve problems is not having no problems.
>So intelligence can be thought of as an adaptive system within an adaptive system and we must distinguish the subset from the superset.
Which is what I’m doing.
“Computational power thus giving them to ability to adapt within a psychological field of concentration or awareness”
>Willingness is a side effect of intelligence
Not necessarily.
>No shit that’s kind of our point. You adding that second part to the definition is unnecessary.
“Mental potential to adapt”
Sure
“1. We’re now describing the actual mechanism, not what it does (Allows you to adapt/solve problems)
2. We explain how it interacts with reality and thus easily explain people who have high power of mind and yet poor life outcomes.”
I’m describing what intelligence is in an unambiguous way in a biological sense and then explaining how it operates in the world.
It gets around any need to explain the implicature and jargon of my key terms.
>But having nothing to adapt to is arguably different from being unable to adapt, is it not?
Being unaware of/having no desire to solve problems is not having no problems.
Aha! Now we’re getting to the crux of our disagreement. To me, if you have no incentive structure; if you can’t feel pleasure or pain (physical or emotional), then you have no problems, because by definition, a problem is something that’s bothering you or causing you harm, distress or dissatisfaction. You can’t harm someone who can’t feel pain.
So intelligence can indeed be defined simply as the (cognitive) ability to adapt situations to your advantage or simply the mind’s problem solving computer. A high IQ person who is temperamentally incapable of adapting should simply be described as a great problem solver cursed with unsolvable problems, or an adaptable computer trying to advance mutually exclusive goals.
Because the part of the brain that solves problems has been objectively certified as high functioning by the IQ test, so any problems the person can’t solve, any situations he can’t adapt to, must be outside his problem solving computer and relate to the problems he is trying to solve, the goals he is trying to advance, the situation he is trying to adapt to.
Meanwhile a low IQ person who is temperamentally quite good at adapting to his environment should be thought of as a bad problem solver blessed with easy problems, or a non-adaptable computer blessed with very simple mutually compatible goals to adapt to.
>because by definition, a problem is something that’s bothering you or causing you harm, distress or dissatisfaction.
Nah, we both know we’re not using it in that sense.
Math “Problems” aren’t “Problems” because they cause me dissatisfaciton, they’re just apparently similar terms.
>So intelligence can indeed be defined simply as the (cognitive) ability to adapt situations to your advantage or simply the mind’s problem solving computer.
Ability defined not as in “Able to do” but as in “Potential to do”, sure. I quite liked that way of putting it.
>described as a great problem solver cursed with unsolvable problems
Someone with great POTENTIAL to solve problems, cursed with insoluble problems.
>must be outside his problem solving computer and relate to the problems he is trying to solve, the goals he is trying to advance, the situation he is trying to adapt to.
Yes, this is what I proposed originally.
>or a non-adaptable computer blessed with very simple mutually compatible goals to adapt to.
This, is fairer than
>Meanwhile a low IQ person who is temperamentally quite good at adapting to his environment should be thought of as a bad problem solver blessed with easy problems
It’s not that the problem is necessarily “easy” but “easy given” and more specifically still “easy given the temperment”
The point isn’t to redefine intelligence as such, which can meaningfully only defined in terms of adaptation/problem-solving or the biological computational ability (What it does and what it is) it’s in explaining how that intelligence interacts with the world and why some smart people end up in situations like they do (think Mugabe, Sidis would be classic example).
The reason I’m more concerned about biology is because defining it in terms of problem solving means that your ability to measure said intelligence is dependent on the mediation of personality (Like people having motivational problems on IQ tests) whereas I hope for a day soon enough that the quality of someones “hardware” can easily be assessed by brainscan.
I guess I have a “Hard” approach to intelligence in that sense.
>because by definition, a problem is something that’s bothering you or causing you harm, distress or dissatisfaction.
Nah, we both know we’re not using it in that sense.
I’m very much using it in that sense: Problem solving = adapting a situation to your advantage.
Math “Problems” aren’t “Problems” because they cause me dissatisfaciton, they’re just apparently similar terms.
I understand math problems are not literally problems in any non-trivial sense, but rather math puzzles, but there’s a reason they were called problems in the first place. Because math was and continues to be used to solve some of the most important real life problems in the World, and that’s why math talent is equated with Genius, much more so than art talent, which doesn’t solve real world problems or help humans adapt to real life challenges or advance transformational goals.
It’s interesting how in common expressions, we associate intelligence with either wealth (if you’re so smart why aren’t you rich?) or math talent (it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that out). This is because making money and advancing science are two of the most concrete examples of adaptive behavior. The rich man has adapted the situation to his advantage on the individual level, but the scientist does the same on the collective level, by advancing the goals of his entire species. Both are problem solvers (the scientist in both senses of the term, hence the stereotypical super IQ is a science geek).
>So intelligence can indeed be defined simply as the (cognitive) ability to adapt situations to your advantage or simply the mind’s problem solving computer.
Ability defined not as in “Able to do” but as in “Potential to do”, sure. I quite liked that way of putting it.
Well if one says COGNITIVE ability to adapt situations to your advantage, then that makes clear we’re only describing the cognitive component of said ability, not the temperamental, emotional, physical or circumstantial component.
If a librarian goes blind, she still has the cognitive ability to sight read, but has lost the sensory ability to do so.
It’s not that the problem is necessarily “easy” but “easy given” and more specifically still “easy given the temperment”
The way I see it, one’s temperament is part of the problem one is solving; it’s part of the situation one is adapting to, rather than part of the adaptability itself. For example, finding a job that pays well and is enjoyable is a much easier problem to solve if you have the kind of temperament that can tolerate stress and boredom, them if you don’t. So a low IQ person who successfully adapts can indeed be described “as lacking the cognitive ability to adapt or problem solve, but because of his great temperament, has an easy situation to adapt to; an easy problem to solve”
The point isn’t to redefine intelligence as such, which can meaningfully only defined in terms of adaptation/problem-solving or the biological computational ability (What it does and what it is) it’s in explaining how that intelligence interacts with the world and why some smart people end up in situations like they do (think Mugabe, Sidis would be classic example).
Mugabe has high cognitive ability to adapt situations to his advantage, but he’s cursed with an extremely difficult situation to adapt to because he has very little tolerance for hard work, stress, evil, and stupidity. So just because one is cognitively adaptable does not necessarily mean one will adapt; and ironically, the more cognitively adaptable you are, the MORE ADAPTING YOU MUST DO, because the World itself has been adapted to average IQ people, so you might get to the point where the IQ gains in adaptability are negated by the increased amount of adapting required. A Promethean believed the optimum IQ for conventional success was 130, and the further you deviate in either direction, the more of a “loser” you’ll be. If there is an optimum IQ I suspect it’s a lot higher than 130 though.
The reason I’m more concerned about biology is because defining it in terms of problem solving means that your ability to measure said intelligence is dependent on the mediation of personality (Like people having motivational problems on IQ tests) whereas I hope for a day soon enough that the quality of someones “hardware” can easily be assessed by brainscan.
I see your point. We don’t want to confuse intelligence with “success”, but at the same time, I also want to remind people why success should correlate with IQ to some degree (as a lot of high IQ underachievers reject the idea)
>Problem solving = adapting a situation to your advantage.
I mean if you take any given situation that you want to solve to not solve it would be dissatisfactory to you.
So in the most technical of technical ways even solving a maths puzzle/problem is solving a problem in the sense that you want to solve it.
>Well if one says COGNITIVE ability to adapt situations to your advantage, then that makes clear we’re only describing the cognitive component of said ability
Yeah, I think that’s sufficiently clear.
I was trying to delineate that away from the more broad “mental”
>The way I see it, one’s temperament is part of the problem one is solving
In a very real sense your temperment “is” you. I’m talking about problems external to oneself that “You” want to adapt to.
>”So a low IQ person who successfully adapts can indeed be described “as lacking the cognitive ability to adapt or problem solve, but because of his great temperament, has an easy situation to adapt to; an easy problem to solve”
I mean if you want to put it like that someone with sophisticated cogntive abilities who has no trouble solving problems finds “Difficult” problems as “Easy” in the experiential sense of problem solving you’re now going into.
The problems in and of themselves are sophisticated puzzles, and temperment and cognitive adaptability are both factors that allow for solutions of those external problems.
>I also want to remind people why success should correlate with IQ to some degree
Oh I mean there can be absolutely no doubt, high IQ underachievers reject that mostly because it’s emotionally offensive to them.
Once again this is just one of those things that’s heuristically valid and yeah a smart guy can wheel out all of these things to show that intelligence /= success in every case but that it’s broadly correlated cannot be doubted and that it’s causally connected is a shoe-in for a certainty. Occam’s razor.
I think it’d be more helpful in the course of our conversation if you took my understanding of “Difficult Problem” to mean “Puzzle of sophistication” and that both of these as external “Things in themselves” to the minds Temperment AND cognition to the minds of any given human.
I mean yes, we could refer to the personality as an “Internal” “Puzzle of sophistication” that gives incentive for self-adaptation to the intellect but this does not mean that it is not in turn a factor of external problem-solving.
Indeed the fact that it gives the incentive for self-reflection means that it’s even a factor of internal problem-solving. Not a cognitive factor, but a factor.
I mean there are two easily delineated mental factors in problem solving:
Cognitive factors
Psychological/tempermental factors (I figure calling it psychological leaves the door open for a broad and specific examination of the nature and subcatagories of it, if you’re interested in doing so)
They can’t be conflated, and they aren’t both what we would mutually described as “Intelligence”, that would be the former exclusively.
>Problem solving = adapting a situation to your advantage.
I mean if you take any given situation that you want to solve to not solve it would be dissatisfactory to you.
So in the most technical of technical ways even solving a maths puzzle/problem is solving a problem in the sense that you want to solve it.
Exactly right. I wasn’t going to go there but I’m glad you did. And indeed what differentiates Genius achievers from non-Genius achievers with equally high IQs is the obsessive desire to solve a problem that seems trivial or unpractical to others.
For Einstein, not understanding the way the speed of light works was not only a math problem, but a HUGE personal problem that consumed his life, and one that could not be solved with money, status, or power. The only way Einstein could adapt the situation to his advantage was to solve that problem, but in a trivial sense anyone taking a math test with even minimal motivation, is satisfying his desire to get the right answer, and solving a real problem too. Technically, every single decision we make, every second of the day, from what words to use in this sentence to what shirt to wear to work to what glass to pour my orange juice in, is a situation I either adapting or maladapting to my advantage. Life is an endless series of adaptations; an endless IQ test with each decision being a test item, but only someone who understands each of our unique incentive structures can keep score.
>Well if one says COGNITIVE ability to adapt situations to your advantage, then that makes clear we’re only describing the cognitive component of said ability
Yeah, I think that’s sufficiently clear.
I was trying to delineate that away from the more broad “mental”
Yes, I used to say cognitive ability and then switched to mental ability for brevity, thinking the term ability itself excluding personality traits per Jensen, but I think you’re right that personality traits and emotions are abilities in a sense. For example a cruel personality lacks the ABILITY to feel compassion, so you’re right that mental ability was insufficiently precise.
>The way I see it, one’s temperament is part of the problem one is solving
In a very real sense your temperment “is” you. I’m talking about problems external to oneself that “You” want to adapt to.
The only difference between a high IQ person who is trying to solve external problems and a high IQ person who is trying to solve internal problems is that the former will be perceived as acting intelligently by everyday observers, while the latter can only show his intelligence psychometrically, or if the internal problems are especially severe, can only show it on a brain scan.
>The only difference between a high IQ person who is trying to solve external problems and a high IQ person who is trying to solve internal problems is that the former will be perceived as acting intelligently by everyday observers, while the latter can only show his intelligence psychometrically, or if the internal problems are especially severe, can only show it on a brain scan.
This is the reason I’m phrasing my definitions the way I am, aside from simple semantic differences of clarity and power of descriptions is that there are non-trivial implications explicit in the way I describe intelligence.
1. My biological definition of intelligence itself draws us to examine the mechanisms of intelligence allowing us to more closely examine and quantify it unmediated by personality.
2. My description of the way it interacts with the world (Through the mediation of personality) draws us towards results of our broader problem-solving ability such as IQ, adaptations and life outcomes.
We can observe and account for how much of any given psychological factor influences the ends allowing for a precise measurement of the intellectual component, and examine and quantify the mechanism by which it happens.
A hypothetical highly intelligent person whose personality is such that they maximise their potential to solve any given puzzle of sophistication will produce results that are self-evidently intelligent, but the reality is that most people, even the most type-A are mediated by some degree of psychological inhibition making it difficult to actually fully examine them, with our most direct proxy as you’ve correctly described being psychometrics.
“I suggest that the person with the greatest brain, in terms of computation, may be ill-equipped to, by faults or abberations of personality, adapt to circumstances that are outside of their areas of expertise, interest, or social conditions”
Well said. When society collapses, who’s going to be well off? The intelligent who didn’t prepare and have no idea how to survive off the land or this white lower intelligence but have been living off the land in isolation for years? If you say that the high IQ person will survive better who has no personal experience surviving without an infrastructure in comparison to a low IQ person who dies know how to survive without infrastructure, you’re fooling yourself.
Even then, the “ability to adapt” is spreading genes, whether this ability is mental or physical. The tardigrade is the most adaptable organism.
Testosterone predicts survival when society collapses. Not IQ.
That’s why women are mad for testosterone.
Why create and produce when you can beat and enslave?
Even social intelligence is better.
Why do you think Kinshasa selects for these traits for so long. Africa is a malthusian death trap…and the death trap selects for brawn and jive talkin.
Only Master selects for differential calculus and rule following.
Exactly. The two traits are inversely correlated, so the low test nerd will die before the high test dolt does. This is what PP doesn’t understand. I understand testosterone from a chemical level, not only in terms of aggression. I’m well read on hormones and their effects on the human body. People should read up on nutrition and at least get the basics before they speak about it.
The malthusian death trap also selects for Schizo and Psychopath.
There are hardly black autistic people.
Specifically paranoid schizo.
When you beat your wife for sleeping around…even though she didn’t….or slit someone’s throat while they sleep…even though they didn’t….you’re guaranteed to survive and reproduce!
Psychopathy is essentially predation. Notice how black civil wars and black crime in the West is by several degrees more violent and barbaric than other races.
Whilst Roma may pickpocket, jews commit fraud, Hispanics drug deal and asian human traffic….blacks commit by much bigger proportions: murders, rapes, violent assault and armed robbery.
This is reflected in their barbaric faces.
Yes realist.
And what people also don’t realise is that testosterone changes the way you think intellectually.
I’m more aggressive in my opinions first, but I can tolerate ego pain and being wrong and I understand ethnic threats. Estrogen and compassion feelings don’t cloud my judgement.
Thats why women should never be leaders.
Not because they’re dumber.
But because they have estrogen.
I agree. I’m pretty aggressive myself, if you can see that from my commenting. It helps me in my business ventures as well. I’m very introverted, but when the right subjects come up I can be an extrovert. On the MBTI I’m INTJ Mon the enneagram I’m type 5 and type 8. The leader is type 8 and the thinker is type 5 I think. I can tolerate being wrong but I have to exhaust all options. Women should not he leaders.
I think being wrong comes with life experience and maturity as well.
People that can never accept being wrong is a case often due to the fact they have invested or built their ego in ‘being intelligent’.
This is a good discussion on the topic.
http://alphagameplan.blogspot.ie/2015/03/winning-redefined.html
Chimp-0-Sapiens is correct about his African groups — the Congoids (which American blacks are descended from) are more successful in the West as immigrants than the East Africans (except for entrepreneurship), and even their sub-saharan cousins slightly north of them (who are also Congoid, but with traces of Semitic admixture). The only conclusion one can deduct from this is that the smarter Congoids have left Africa. Congoids are the most sociopathic of the sub-saharans.
Schizoid types are more testosterone driven, less agreeable, a necessary component for creativity, a component of sociopathy, a component needed when a society is on the brink collapse — Americans hate Muslims and the Anglo Prole Sphere is at war with them — simply, similarity breeds contempt — Islamic Societies are the 3rd world counterparts of the Anglo-Jewish Empire of aggressive universalism of chaos and dysfunctionalism.
“Chimp-0-Sapiens”
Fuck you
“The only conclusion one can deduct from this is that the smarter Congoids have left Africa.”
BS, the Gulf of Guinea is the most developed region in SSAfrica after Southern Africa, it has a larger share of wealthy and educated people, the Horn of Africa has the lowest.
“When society collapses, who’s going to be well off? The intelligent who didn’t prepare and have no idea how to survive off the land or this white lower intelligence but have been living off the land in isolation for years? If you say that the high IQ person will survive better who has no personal experience surviving without an infrastructure in comparison to a low IQ person who dies know how to survive without infrastructure, you’re fooling yourself.”
Of course the intelligent prepare, that’s stupid to suggest otherwise. What makes you think they still wouldn’t be well off? Rednecks and hunter gatherers then sure, but there would still be high IQ survivors. In fact, only the most intelligent wold probably be able to survive and reproduce the next generation and eventually overtake lower IQ populations once again.
“Of course the intelligent prepare, that’s stupid to suggest otherwise. What makes you think they still wouldn’t be well off? Rednecks and hunter gatherers then sure, but there would still be high IQ survivors. In fact, only the most intelligent wold probably be able to survive and reproduce the next generation and eventually overtake lower IQ populations once again.”
Rednecks, hunter-gatherers, people who prep, etc. The way I personally see it, the high IQ person who needs society to function will crumble when society breaks down. Even in societal breakdown, the less intelligent will have more children.
Where do high IQ populations ‘overtake’ anyone anywhere? The dull strongly outnumber the bright.
“The way I personally see it, the high IQ person who needs society to function will crumble when society breaks down.”
Maybe in a monetary sense yes, but they would still have their high IQ to help them
“Even in societal breakdown, the less intelligent will have more children.”
That’s not true, or at least the discrepancy would be insignificant. In a uncivilized world nothing holds higher IQ individual’s fertility back.
“Where do high IQ populations ‘overtake’ anyone anywhere? The dull strongly outnumber the bright.”
Yeah, but they have far disproportionately less control.
Psychopathy is essentially predation.
and predators are, as a group, the most endangered animals.
the philosturbator is not as bright as afro-sapiens…who claims to be a haitian by birth adopted by a rich french family.
against the autistic and insufferable american academics…the plural of anecdote IS data.
the immature motives of steve shoe are more obvious than those of afrosapiens.
the super fag sullivan claimed testosterone turned him into a superman. others find no effect, but ‘roid rage may be real. idk.
Funnily enough, I don’t see anything particularly amazing about this Afro you keep speaking of, especially in verbal.
He’s like patched version of Chigune with some doggy training.
I think in law school they teach someone to drag the opponent into semantic muck when they’re losing an argument and need to convince the judge to throw the case on labelling grounds.
“So you say the man entered the house on the evening of Saturday with a weapon. Can you be sure it was the evening, and not…LATE AFTERNOON?”
Your magic negro champion of semantics.
Like
OMN
Original Magic Negro
Well, look, put it like this…maybe people buy the semantic stuff not in a legal throw the case sense, but a logical sense.
Is anyone here swayed by Afrosapiens argument that the black white gap is down to environment and not giving enough rewards and money to blacks?
Happy to see a poll on this.
Ironically my joke about Oscars is actually the type of reward Afrosapiens has in mind to close the gap rather than money per se. Hahaha!
“Is anyone here swayed by Afrosapiens argument that the black white gap is down to environment and not giving enough rewards and money to blacks?”
No, they gave up on the discussion but I really don’t think they changed their minds.
I believe a few points can be explained by nutrition. Look at how IQ has declined in America. Nutrition has gotten worse.
And PP, don’t cite those Lynn studies on malnourished Koreans (I think it was like 12 adoptees) into German homes. I’m talking about nutrition specifically in America between races. I’ve been through nutrition and average macro intake here.
Diaz et al (2005) showed that minority populations are more likely to be affected by diabetes mellitus which may be due to less healthy diets and/or genetic factors. Using the National Health and Nutrition Survey for 1999-2000, they analyzed overweight, healthy adults, calculating dietary intake variables and insulin sensitivity by ethnicity. They characterized insulin resistance with fasted insulin, as those who are more likely to become insulin resistant have higher fasted insulin levels (levels taken after waking, with the subject being told not to eat the night before as to get a better reading of fasted insulin levels). Non-‘Hispanic’ whites had higher energy and fat intake while ‘Hispanics’ had higher carb intake with blacks having lower fiber intake. Blacks and ‘Hispanics’ were more likely to have lower insulin sensitivity. However, ‘Hispanics’ were more likely to have lower insulin sensitivity even after controlling for diet, showing that metabolic differences exist between ethnicities that affect carbohydrate metabolism which leads to higher rates of diabetes in those populations.
Diaz et al state in the results of the study:
Non-‘Hispanic’ whites have higher overall energy and fat intake. This means that carbohydrates are less of a percent of the overall diet. In comparison, blacks had lower fiber intake. This means that they eat more processed foods. The same with ‘Hispanics’. Since they constantly spike their insulin with refined carbs, they have higher rates of fasted insulin and thus, have lower insulin sensitivity which is a risk factor for pre-diabetes.
Moreover, from my own personal work with people’s diets, whites eat less refined carbs than blacks or ‘Hispanics’, and while an anecdote, I’ve worked with hundreds of people.
Table 2 of the study shows that whites have a higher total kcal intake in comparison to blacks and ‘Hispanics’, ‘Hispanics’ have a statistically significant higher carb consumption, and blacks eat less fiber. Since whites eat more dietary fat and have a higher fiber intake, that protects them against higher rates of the *average population* that will be obese. Blacks consume less fiber. Dietary fiber actually protects against obesity (http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/31/10/S43.3.short), so the fact that blacks don’t eat more fiber shows that they eat more refined foods (it’s easily explainable why ‘Hispanics’ eat more fiber. They consume more beans and other fibrous, whole foods). However, since ‘Hispanics’ are more likely to be poor (correlated with low intelligence), they then cannot afford higher quality foods.
So we see what low income does for diet. Now let’s see what spiking insulin does.
Insulin inhibits the breakdown of fat in the adipose tissue by inhibiting the lipase that hydrolyzes (the chemical breakdown of a compound due to a reaction with water) the fat out of the cell. Since insulin facilitates the entry of glucose into the cell, when this occurs, the glucose is synthesized into glycerol. Along with the fatty acids in the liver, they both are synthesized into triglycerides in the liver. Due to these mechanisms, insulin is directly involved with the shuttling of more fat into the adipocyte. Since insulin has this effect on fat metabolism in the body, it has a fat-sparing effect. Insulin drives most cells to prefer carbohydrates for energy. Putting it all together, insulin indirectly stimulates the accumulation of fat into the adipose tissue.
http://arbl.cvmbs.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/endocrine/pancreas/insulin_phys.html
So blacks are more likely to be poor, and due to them being poor, they aren’t able to afford high quality food. I’ve been in tons of “hoods”, and I see the trash that they buy in the corner stores. People really should be taught basic nutrition at a young age. Then we wouldn’t have these problems.
I diverged a bit, but it should be looked into exactly how much nutrition affects intelligence in a first world country, just because they are first world countries doesn’t mean that there are no nutritional deficits within and between populations in that same country.
Philosopher, I’m not swayed by his argument. I already know the effects of nutrition within and between populations. It should be looked into more. I’ve spoken at length about nutritional deficits as well as disease and parasite load in regards to African IQ.
Nutrition matters extensively for attaining what you have genetically.
I should note that I not Hispanics have the lower insulin sensitivity even after controlling for diet. There is a SLIGHT difference in carb digestion which had native populations more susceptible to diabesity, like the Pima.
https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/35103/10191_ftp.pdf?sequence=1
I believe this is due to genetic isolation in Native populations. No general flow between populations. They are the most genetically distinct population due to this. Though it may only be some Indian populations.
so…essentially….
Chiune and Afrosapiens were ‘substantive’
but they are not a Jew hating schizos (sharing your ideology)…
so they’re dumb?
Gimme a break nigga.
I don’t think Phellaliolatti here is capable to judge the cognitive and psychological capacities of any one here…
starting for himself….
Phelattiolatti is a fraud, a ”magic negro” himself, 😉
He have
– higher intelligence, not enough to be a genius, so sorry,
”truthurts”
– higher psychoticism
so, most people here, seems, are thinking he is a genius.
That’s right. Philosturbator is dumb. He calls himself “schizo” to avoid being labeled “dumb”.
He should just embrace his identity as a “magic negro”.
Emancipate yourself!
BOTTOM LINE
Mugabe and Philosopher can not function in the real world due to a combination of savantism and mental illness.
for js:
spain produces more barley than the US and has a higher per capita consumption of beer. it is the 10th biggest producer of beer in the world. 50% of the alcohol consumed is consumed in the form of beer, the same as the US.
so spain is very different from france and italy in this regard…interesting.
That could be true since Spaniards love to drink beer in a snifter.
Any Western entity outside of the Anglo Prole Sphere is exotic and interesting in its own way.
Everytime when I’m in French Canada, my senses are tingling with fright. My colloquial French is terrible and Québecois is prole. Worse, French Speaking Hispanics greet me in French and expect the same in return.
The Anglo Proles are a doomed species in the polyglot Darwinian world.
Afrosapiens
Before people vote. Let me jump back into the muck. This stuff is such a waste of time, like with Gypsy.
But here goes:
(1) “No, significant differences remain in their pre-adoption experiences and adoptive family SES.”
Prove that there were no differences. If you can sandbag pumpers on environment. Now prove the reverse.
Ipso facto, an adoption is a removal of the child from genetic similars. Even on personality attributes of parents alone, there would be a change of parenting. If you believe personality/culture is a function of class, then show the adopters were the same income class. Don’t sandbag on ‘class’ please.
(2) “No, being a black kid or mixed race kid in a 1976 all white school must have been a difficult experience in terms of identity, bullying. Those factors may have effect on motivation too.”
Prove it with reference to how other racial groups do in all white environments. Specifically quote east asians, south asians in your answer. The ask, why do they need such less help and ‘motivation’.
Actually blacks do less well when white density declines:
Click to access school_composition_and_the_bw_achievement_gap_2015.pdf
Now your options are:
(a) Sandbag me by asking for data from other countries cos education in US is wayciss (which is a low IQ conspiracy theory, as most teachers are female liberals who want blacks to do well and the textbooks are full of Magic Negro achievement in charaltanary written by Zion)
(b) Go over the article with a microscope looking for sampling problems between state, county, town, neighbourhood, indeed bathroom v bedroom.
(c) Change the meaning of the words thatta commma outta theys mouths and they dont undustanding de ‘education’ meaning and the ‘achievement’ meanun.
(3) “Most studies in the hard sciences but also in economics, anthropology, sociology actually do perfectly control for everything they think matters to the subject.”
This person has never read an eco, anthro or sociology paper. Perhaps ever.
(4) “Nutrition affects intelligence, blacks and white differe in intelligence.
So you have to know if blacks and whites differe in nutrition, you can’t rule that hypothesis out because you believe they don’t, you have to investigate it and find out whether they do or don’t. And you have to search nutritional intake, deficiencies, metabolic differences… Not height as a loose proxy, not weight nor the fact that no one apparently starving in America, this is not what nutrition is.”
I’m going to make a complicated argument here so hopefully this can be followed.
Obesity levels among whites in the US, and UK, and elsewhere have greatly increased http://www.bbc.com/news/health-18393391
Obesity is a good indicator of poor nutrition of calorie dense, nutrient lite foods.
Now the intriguing hypo:
Obesity (nutrition) levels in whites widen the gap more, not blacks.
Nutrition matters more for IQ results in whites. Thus the smaller gap in IQ among blacks and whites in the UK, is perhaps explained by whites poorer nutrition in the UK, than America.
http://stateofobesity.org/disparities/
https://www.noo.org.uk/uploads/doc/vid_9444_Obesity_and_ethnicity_270111.pdf (look at page 8, BMI can be high for muscle bound blacks, so hip/waist and wasit circum were helpfully done as well. Use Irish as proxy for white brit nutrition)
Notice also how blacks gain more from nutrition in terms of R selected traits: heights, muscularity and test levels, but asians/whites in more K selected ones – IQ, long distance cardio tolerance.
The median height for black male adults is 177cm http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr010.pdf
The average height of black male africans, using median of av height based on Nigeria, Cameroon, Malawi and South Africa is 168. (sort 1: measured height only, sort 2, nothing before year 2000/african green revolution, sort 3 males as nutrition is a male R trait. Also Note: Saffers are good proxy cos much of their population is not south african, but black migrants from Zambia, Zimbabwe etc chasing white productivity). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_average_human_height_worldwide
Note how the blacks jump more than an SD in male human height distribution with just western mcdonalds nutrition, but only an SD in IQ even with white schooling, white infrastructure and white culture (height is not effected by environment beyond nutrition)
Your sandbag options:
1. Ask me to do an indepth nutrition analysis for iron, omega 3s and so on in typical western low income diets, never wondering why Hispanics and East Asian food is not much better at that income level.
2. Sandbag me on using just 3 countries even though Saffa is rep of southern africa, but not noting how I some of these samples are of urban (richer) male adults in Africa. Or using averages v median….HELLO KURTOSIS
3. Sandbag me on semantics again.
4. Racist!TM sampling
(5) I’ve just given an explanation for the UK and South African gap. In fact in Saffer land, the lower IQ whites have stayed post Magic Negro Madeba. Why? Because only a lower IQ white would stay in South Africa considering.
(6) “That’s still better than hereditarians who can’t even cite one allele that has any contribution to the gap.”
Classic sandbag argument.
The human genome was only mapped within the last 10-15 years fully.
People in the 19th and 20th centuries knew electro-magnetism or radiation and so on existed but didn’t have the technology to measure it.
Just because you can’t measure something, and genetics is complicated, doesn’t mean you can’t infer its effects, like above.
For example, we know mixed race white and blacks people have higher IQs than blacks alone. We have twin adoption studies. We have migration of blacks to various areas of the planet in different settings – climate, demographic mix, institutional/legal variation etc….we get the same conclusion if you have an IQ >100.
Mugabe invokes the same dumbass argument that he got from McDonalds University of psychiatry with a distinction in gamma studies.
I don’t need to measure someone’s IQ with a pen and paper timed WAIS-IV test, to tell the difference in people’s general cognition.
Funnily enough our dudebro friends in the nightclub once again ‘get it’. Just talking to enough black guys or chasing black skirt long enough will work wonders on social observation.
Meanwhile Afrosemanticisms and Gypsy Mac G spot are still doing the ant people crawl in the dark, praying for geneticists to crack the genome in the next 10 years.
This is why finance people make more money than academics.
Rationality is getting knowledge in the quickest time possible.
Not waiting for Galileo to publish data and destroy his life/career to save your retarded ass from delusions.
My newest maxim:
LOGIC DEFIES LABELS
My other ones:
AESTHETICS DON’T LIE
MORALITY IS AN ILLUSION
I’m sure over time I’ll add to these.
“Prove that there were no differences. If you can sandbag pumpers on environment. Now prove the reverse.”
How could I prove something that is not true, they found environmental differences in the background of the children, differences that were found to influence the IQ gains and the retention of these gains. What to I need to add ? They just didn’t came up with a conclusion like “race was the only factor explaining the variance in IQ scores”.
“If you believe personality/culture is a function of class, then show the adopters were the same income class.”
The adopters were not perfectly equal in terms of income, education and IQ, I never denied it, Pumpkin did.
“Prove it with reference to how other racial groups do in all white environments. ”
Black Europeans do much better than black Americans in all white environments, and the adoptive kids apparently did quite well too, but maybe not as well as if 1976 America didn’t have the racist culture that Europe never had since the 20th century.
“Specifically quote east asians, south asians in your answer. The ask, why do they need such less help and ‘motivation’.”
Citing other blacks works just as well, but since you want me to talk about non-blacks, well in the very Minnesota study, the Asian/Native sample is scoring 96, at age 7 that’s 3 points more than the blacks but ten points less than the mixed race, so they might have needed motivation too.
“Actually blacks do less well when white density declines:”
Fine 2015 figures, how about 1976 ?
“This person has never read an eco, anthro or sociology paper. Perhaps ever.”
Come on, why would I mention things I know nothing about ? I’m not JS.
“Nutrition matters more for IQ results in whites. Thus the smaller gap in IQ among blacks and whites in the UK, is perhaps explained by whites poorer nutrition in the UK, than America.”
Black men are less susceptible to obesity because we have a specific mutation that helps us burn fat better (Ask RaceRealist, he is well informed on that subject). However, if you look at females, African females are 38% obese, Irish are 21%. Averaging males and females, obesity is 27,5% among Africans, 23% among Irish, 28,5% among Caribbeans. In the US, blacks are 47% obese and whites are 32%. So no, Irish-British don’t seem to have worse nutrition than American whites, but black British groups are better fed than Americans as a whole, if we only consider obesity.
“Notice also how blacks gain more from nutrition in terms of R selected traits: heights, muscularity and test levels”
First of all, in biology, the r/K theory postulates that larger body size is a K trait, muscularity doesn’t even matter to the subject, testosterone levels are not a stable trait, they depend on one’s activity and nutrition just as well as their genetics.
“but asians/whites in more K selected ones – IQ, long distance cardio tolerance.”
IQ, has nothing to do with r/K theory in its purest biological meaning, and the champions at long distance cardio tolerance are the East Africans as well as some Maghrebi.
“The median height for black male adults is 177cm”
So what ? Black americans owe 20% of their genes to northwestern Europeans who are a tall population, they also have Sahelian origins, tall people too.
“Saffers are good proxy cos much of their population is not south african, but black migrants from Zambia, Zimbabwe etc chasing white productivity).”
“Note how the blacks jump more than an SD in male human height distribution with just western mcdonalds nutrition”
Plus 20% Euro genes. And what you say is assuming that Africans have an IQ of 70, an estimate that no serious person has been able to replicate.
“(height is not effected by environment beyond nutrition)”
It is, diarrhea (causes non-absorption), malaria, tuberculosis, all cause stunting due to the metabolic cost of fighting them. So Africans are stunted by more than just nutrition.
“never wondering why Hispanics and East Asian food is not much better at that income level.”
Does this sentence even make sense ?
“I’ve just given an explanation for the UK and South African gap. In fact in Saffer land, the lower IQ whites have stayed post Magic Negro Madeba. Why? Because only a lower IQ white would stay in South Africa considering.”
You gave no explanation whatsoever, just lame speculations that I quite easily debunked. White South Africans have experienced just as much brain drain as did other developing countries. And for your information, it’s Madiba, not Madeba.
“(6) “That’s still better than hereditarians who can’t even cite one allele that has any contribution to the gap.”
Classic sandbag argument.”
Is that statement wrong though ? You know that’s the only thing that can close the debate for good.
“People in the 19th and 20th centuries knew electro-magnetism or radiation and so on existed but didn’t have the technology to measure it.”
But now we have the ability to measure it, gene for the height of pygmies, for European’s light skin, East Asian’s earwax, African’s malaria resistance as well as genes explaining at least in part some health disparities between ethnic groups have been found. In fact, population genetics and its medical implications is a hot field of research. In my opinion, if some genes explained a significant part of ethnic disparities in IQ at least some of them would have been found.
“For example, we know mixed race white and blacks people have higher IQs than blacks alone.”
Who knows that ? The varying local degrees of African and European ancestry within the United States don’t explain differences in IQ and achievement. And because of assortative mating, mixed race people are not supposed to score halfway between their parent’s racial average, they are supposed score halfay between their parents who typically have a similar IQ which doesn’t have to be the average of their respective race.
“We have migration of blacks to various areas of the planet in different settings – climate, demographic mix, institutional/legal variation etc….we get the same conclusion if you have an IQ >100.”
I’ve seen studies from the Caribbean (Bahamas, Barbados, Jamaica) with samples averaging above 100. I’ve seen Chines samples scoring well below 80.
“I don’t need to measure someone’s IQ with a pen and paper timed WAIS-IV test, to tell the difference in people’s general cognition.”
Well, I’m glad you have such supernatural powers. Another thing that would be helpful for you is not to call dumb things you don’t understand.
I’ve seen studies from the Caribbean (Bahamas, Barbados, Jamaica) with samples averaging above 100. I’ve seen Chines samples scoring well below 80.
please go to the trouble to find these…this is very interesting.
Browse google scholar
r/K has been debunked a long time ago, I don’t understand why race realists are still using it.
If it has been debunked (it hasn’t), then people still use it because they can’t change their view when presented with new information.
I’ve shown you the paper corroborating r K theory.
“If it has been debunked (it hasn’t), then people still use it because they can’t change their view when presented with new information.”
The r/K theory, in pure biology, has been challenged many species exhibit both r and K traits, it is not a stable definition of evolutionary strategies in the animal kingdom.
Afrosapiens,
Here’s a paper corroborating r/K theory under a new name—CLASH (CLimate, Aggression, and Self-control in Humans). Published a few months ago in Behavioral and Brain Sciences.
Click to access Van_Lange_BBS-D-15-00646_preprint.pdf
I’ve heard of it, they describe a general (and disputable) pattern, but nothing indicates that it’s rooted in genes. Many concurrent hypotheses can be formulated for each of the variable they describe.
Actually, the CLASH theory makes no mention of genetics or natural selection at all.
ultimately such judgements about race are irrelevant in a race blind society, but such a society is impossible…
homo sovieticus meet homo raceblindicus.
but there are reasons other than race that blacks in the OECD might score low or be poor…their parents and grandparents etc. were poor, were discriminated against (in law in the US), were segregated, were excluded, etc.
people hate being called “rac-ist” almost as much as the people who cry “racist!” hate rac-ism.
but…
de facto segregation and discrimination can happen even without any conscious elaborated ideology of racism.
as chomsky said the other day…hitler was a sincere and dedicated ideologue…
hitler was a real racist…most white folks are not anything like hitler…even in the american south. their “racism” is unconscious.
but then again you have:
1. someone is strikingly different in appearance before you.
2. someone who belongs to a population which has a history of legal discrimination/slavery.
3. someone who belongs to a population which tends to suffer from various social pathologies at a higher rate than other populations.
it’s impossible to be race blind in the case of SSAs.
The same white folks who performed thousands of lynchings on black people? The same folks who enslaved blacks? The same folks who created and rigorously enforced segregation? These people are not racist? They weren’t as racist as Hitler but I doubt their racism was unconscious. It was highly conscious and enshrined in the law itself. Besides, one might say that unconscious racism is more evil.
Actually what makes racism evil, in my view, is its manifestation in the real world. Racism is not evil in the abstract if it doesn’t motivate people’s actions. To gauge how racist a society is, one should look at how the different races are treated.
Notice how all races react to blacks the same way….
AESTHETICS DONT LIE.
Maybe META LOGIC BEATS MICRO LOGIC
….sniffle….iron deficienceeeee
SNiffle.
East Asians also have Iron deficienceeeesssss
Sniffle.
META: Why were you controlling against just huwhites?
Bark.
Math envy
I scored in the top 3-5% of my country in advanced math with 2 weeks of grinds before the day of the state exam from one of my country’s Math Olympiad representatives.
But you’re right I hate math. I never did the homework and avoided studying that for the whole senior cycle.
Believe it or not, after my school IQ testing the school guidance counsellor said:
“Phil, I want you to sit down. I’ve just reviewed your scores and I think you could probably do anything, but I would reccomend engineering.”
Engineering! Hahahaha.
I would have blown my brains out.
My friend took his advice, but in his case it was an excellent recommendation.
Neuroticism and psychoticism seems very similar one each other…
Seems, neuroticism is the intro-verted psychoticism while psychoticism seems to be the extraverted neuroticism…
or in other perspective, neuroticism is the feminine psychoticism and psychoticism is the masculine neuroticism.
Woman feel more because internalize more
Man spread more their inner feelings because tend to internalize less
Spread negative emotions is different to feel them.
or niet, niet, caput!! 😉
Laamen
Well, next jump
psychoticism would other manifestation of ”extreme male brain”* as well real atheism*
When i watch this video in this first time(s) i thought
”well, east (asians) tend to think like that while west (europeans) tend to think like that, both right”
but already in the first ”test” i find, i believe, a partially-subtle pattern
”even i have some simpathy with ‘oriental’ culture… westerners chose the correct one.
Like this flower test.
No doubt that only the group B that shared the universal similarity: The dark and hard stem.
But MOST of easterner sample chose the group A. Seems obvious that group B is the right answer.
Other example: the boy in the right picture is happy or sad**
http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/language_philosophy.html
A direct question with direct answer
Yes, he’s happy, because I’m just answering what i’m seeing and he’s happy regardless the feelings of their ”friends”.
Seems east asians, based on this tests, would more verbally ”illiterate”**
I mean, the question is direct, none asked ”the friends of the boy in the middle are happy or sad”.
Basically the ”eastern thought”
”the boy in the middle, in the right picture, is happy**”
the only right answer
”he’s happy, because… dur… he’s happy”
the ”eastern thought” answer
”he’s sad, because their group is sad”
but, again, no one asked about their group, PERIOD.
Would be very interesting to see how africans would answer this questions.
Most people on this blog have IQs above 120 and everyone on this blog has an IQ above 90 EXCEPT Race Realist who has the mental retardation.
That’s why he constantly missing the point of every discussion.
You have to go slow with him guys.
I’m not joking. His SAT scores literally equate to an IQ of 66, and mine equate to an IQ of 171. According to 163 IQ Mugabe, the SAT is the best IQ test there is.
Please explain what I am “not understanding”.
I’m probably one of the most well off people with an IQ that low. Thanks for the compliment!
Thanks for the laugh I needed that. My businesses are pretty successful. I’ve worked with big names both training and nutrition wise. I’m doing pretty well in my life for a retard, wouldn’t you say?
Now, explain to me what “I’m not getting”.
philosturbator is half right.
if one knew nothing about two people other than that one was black and the other korean, he should wager that the korean will be better at math and the black at basketball…but he shouldn’t wager that much…or parley his bets…he’ll be ruined in no time…why?…because there’s huge overlap in abilities whether genetic or not.
so in the case of investments/money management, where one never has all the information, he must make decisions from the gut…or based on very small signal to noise…again it’s not based on “knowledge” but probability. probability and statistics is a more or less precise way of quantifying human ignorance…with the possible exception of QM phenomena: the thing-in-itself is never random. as buffett observed: risk comes from not knowing what you’re doing. the philosturbator is also half right that some people have more reliable gut instincts than others and this superiority should not be deprecated for its inscrutability, as academics and other autists are wont to do. How George Soros Knows What He Knows…talks about all this.
oops…or parlay his bets…
off topic…as usual…but i’d like the philosturbator’s opinion/input…
the accuracy of one’s own assessment of his confidence is the difference between a loser and a billionaire hedgie…imho…given they have the same IQ.
it requires introspection. it requires that one stand outside himself and look at himself.
few can do this. it’s the mental version of that feeling you get (one gets) when the elevator is decelerating…
let’s get autistic…
i’ve looked it up…there’s deontic logic…the logic of “shoulds”. there’s para-consistent logic…originating with a PERUVIAN believe it or not! there are hispanics and there are latinos…very different!
the logicians have yet to come up with a logic of confidence. how should one reason about his own level of confidence/certainty?
a good answer is worth…much more than bill gates’s personal fortune.
”it requires introspection. it requires that one stand outside himself and look at himself.”
Something you no have…
Factual understanding is fundamental…
Most ”smart[er]” ones are those who are very good to ”rationalize” their beliefs and because the common correlation between megalomania and higher [cognitive] intelligence, they tend to be frankly stupid in introspective skills…
but
ONLY introspection make people self-oriented, narcisistic and atomized from their environment…
Extrospection need work very well with introspection to produce a really good thinker, and many times, to understand thyself you need compare yourself with others, what generally megalomaniacal ”and’ narcisistic tend not to do, because they believe they are the ideal, without compare themselves with other people, firstly…
Seems, most ”smart[er]” ones can:
– have a great social awareness to do a good appearance,
– to CONVINCE many people with their well elaborated and science-based arguments,
– manipulate other people in emotionally way,
AND
be factually wrong!!!
We have very good examples here of smarter ones who are not quite rational/to wise.
…and many times, to understand thyself you need compare yourself with others…
right. and it works for societies too. one cannot understand how strange his own society is until he holds up the only mirror which is handy…the mirror of other societies.
i wasn’t equating “self-awareness” with introspection. i meant that in order to act on one’s level of confidence consistently he needs some way of quantifying it, and this can only be done by treating ones own self as if he were a stranger.
Yes, i agree that only self-awareness don’t necessarily implies in introspection, but we can understand both as basically the same thing but distributed in different degrees, assuming that introspective people have highly well developed self-awareness or introspection is a product of higher self awareness.
Evolutionary alienation is what ”white race”, but many other human groups have evolved and only one group have been protected via partial nomadism + higher intelligence: jews.
So many people, and specially the smarter ones, simply don’t understand how intellectually weak most people are.
”i meant that in order to act on one’s level of confidence consistently he needs some way of quantifying it, and this can only be done by treating ones own self as if he were a stranger”
Yes, the doctor have better panorama about the body of their patient than the patient itself. The ”second opinion”, if you believe the first diagnosis was not satisfatory/enough, so you will search for a second or more opinions. Seems, many or most people simply trust blindly in the first opinion.
Some people here, again, is purposing a impossibly supra-good environment for blacks surpass or equalize [only] with whites while they are forgeting some facts:
– east asians whatever the environment they are, tend to have the same patterns: higher [cognitive] intelligence, more introverted personality, less crime rates,
– Current american, canadian, european socio-economic environment [and even some third world countries like Brazil] has been very good for most people, blacks included, so the nutrition excuses no make sense when we have taller and fattier blacks walking in the american or canadian streets.
Human development index of black americans, if they were a separated nation, would be very good.
Click to access A_Century_Apart.pdf
– In many african countries is not the hunger that is the problem but the rampant increase of overweight.
”Anti-racists” just love to despise the inconvenient existence of billion of east asians living in bad, average and good environments and showing the same behavioral and psycho-cognitive patterns.
Very good Afrosemantics. I can see why Mugabe rates you a bit now.
Very thorough due diligence.
Is that your doggy training in the legal studies area coming through or your basilar fear of blacks eventually being proven to be of lower inherent cognitive profile?
Perhaps both. Fear is the greatest motivator.
I think the same motivation was underlying racerealist/gypsy’s fear of Blacks having bigger dongs/sexual animus.
I’ll go back into ant person mode and post a full detailed rebuttal tomorrow.
“I think the same motivation was underlying racerealist/gypsy’s fear of Blacks having bigger dongs/sexual animus.”
No ‘fear’ here. Self-reports=unreliable. Moreover, I bet the average man doesn’t know how to measure correctly, so how can we trust that data? Should I trust my clients when they say they’ve lost x number of pounds? Or should I surprise them at work/their home and weigh them myself? I’ve done that—and what do you know—they were lying.
I’ve shown they were self-reports. I’ve talked about hormones and the like. There is no difference. If you want to believe horrible self-reports, be my guest bro. But that’s nowhere near reliable data.
The biggest meta-study on dieting looked at 14 relevant studies. It didn’t use studies that had self-reported weights. If it were up to PP, he would include the self-reported weights which would skew the average towards more weight loss.
Click to access MannTomiyamaAmPsy2007.pdf
Hahaha. They didn’t use studies that had self-reports over the phone or mail. Something Rushton should have done, yet somehow he thought that a nonrepresentative, nonrandom sample with self-reports was enough.
So embarrassing.
Unless you and PP would argue that the authors should have included self-reports by phone or mail in their meta-analysis. Please argue that they should have included the self-reports, make my day.
“I’ll go back into ant person mode and post a full detailed rebuttal tomorrow.”
Alright, bring it on, I expect much detail given the time you’re gonna take.
Trumpacolyptic Tranny
I think the best way to explain this is 2 stories:
STORY 1
Many years ago as an econ undergrad, I went to my professor to ask him about the FX textbook I was studying at the time. Eventually the conversation devolved into a 2 hour debate on the use of formal math in economics more generally.
Now, at the time I couldn’t argue verbally in a cogent manner like today why I FELT it was a stupid approach to economics.
It was only last week in fact that I saw Munger delineate precisely why theoretical math has a place in physics, but not much in economics.
Now I FELT at that time what I was being taught was dumb. But the Chicago Phd prof and many of the students gobbled up this useless approach that actually turned out to have no use in real world economics….
When I use the term Meta logic, I really mean a kind of eagle’s view pattern recognition that often one doesn’t have the empirics or symbology (math or language) to explicate momentarily. Its just a gut pattern call from repeated exposure to a pattern.
I correctly diagnosed the problem of the world economy in this autist idiot environment long before I knew about Marx, who was taboo, and Piketty’s empirics while the global economy was doing well.
As an aside: I believe rule following personalities actually suffer from most formal education in economics (and possibly other subjects) because not long later I came to realise, econ was being taught like this for a political reason – plutocracy. Which was invented by non-autists to rob autists of their income/wealth.
STORY 2
I used to be a major football addict (soccer as you say in the US) and I watch a lot of rugby.
When I watch a series of games I get ‘feelings’ about what is going on. Same with rugby. After learning the rules and watching a few games, I get a feeling about what is good or bad strategy.
One day I got pissed off and turned to my friend in the bar and said – do you notice the way a lot of teams these days are playing their midfielders defensively (before the term ‘defensive midfielder/Claude Makelele role’ was in vogue).
Not only does it mean lots of attacks are stodgy and crap to watch, but it means essentially relying on individual brilliance, dodgy refs or a sloppy defensive error…the teams that can afford to spend on technical skill shouldn’t be hobnobbing themselves playing like a team of tetchy crack addicts fishing for snuff under a pillow.
I FELT it. I suppose I was subconsciously seeing the pattern over a series of many games alongside the noise of referee calls, bizarre errors, individual player talent, luck, location, managerial tactics, substitutions and other stuff.
Now Spain won 2008 playing attacking fluid football that I hadn’t seen a national team do in years, as even Brazil had long adopted double DM (contributing to horrific underperformance).
Then Del Bosque came in and started doing double DM and even though he won the world cup and euros; I know in my heart, today, that is the wrong approach. I believe he was winning many of those games on pens and 1-0s against technically inferior opposition. They should have been winning comfortably.
This is where the autist is lost. The signal results ‘proves’ he is a genius when this phenomenon’s underlying liquidity is against the flow of what should be happening . Its the gut pattern recognition that leads to my feeling that his team was essentially winning with a straitjacket.
Then reversion to the mean eventually happened. Like today.
Multi-billion euro teams were playing with the handbrake on for years until Spanish club football showed the way.
****
This is all to say in my personal case its pattern recognition. Not a formal logic, math models, use of empirics + deduction, or some other conscious epistemological approach. I genuinely don’t think one could teach it. You either see the pattern consciously, or as often, subconsciously after exposure and your gut starts whirring.
And even if your predictions are momentarily ‘wrong’, you know the deep underlying tendency and its just the noise preventing its fruition. Even if you don’t have the stats, academic papers and so on.
As a sidenote: anyone talking about ‘form’ in relation to football has usually a low IQ. Footballers performance depends much more on the system of play they are in. I’d only be looking at a shocking toxicology report or chronic injury as a reason for truly poor ‘form’.
i know all that, but how does one learn to listen to his gut.
my gut tells me lots of things, but i often ignore it…perhaps i’ve learned to.
I came to realise, econ was being taught like this for a political reason – plutocracy. Which was invented by non-autists to rob autists of their income/wealth.
this is exactly right, and the same goes for anglo-american/analytic philosophy and psychology. there is a reason why these are the tortuous, sophistical, playing at math and science, etc. they are…
because when they are this way they are ideologically safe, harmless, and those who get through an econ or finance course at a prestigious uni are guaranteed to be “on-board”/”team-players”/ideologically pure.
and none of the people in these fields has any clue whatsoever about this…maybe a few so-called “heterodox” econs.
but it’s not a conspiracy. it is not by design of the masters.
this is why we disagree. i and chomsky before me have said so many times that a very special kind of stupidity is actually a great help in acquiring status in the US at least. you disagree.
lloyd blankfein is just as much an autist as a bench chemist or working engineer, he just makes 600x as much per year.
soros? no! but such successes are extremely rare…a very rich person who also thinks and who wants to be taken seriously qua thinker. in fact, this is the great failure soros hates himself for. he still is pretty much dismissed as a kook…a very rich kook.
think about it…peepee should too…
how many billionaires are also accomplished authors? who even try to be?
almost none! and it’s not because their attempts are dismissed by envious academics or literary critics…
it’s because they ultimately have very little to say, and even when they write something its sole purpose is to clear their name/public relations, and it’s written with someone else. it really bothers soros that no one cares about his thinking. and even though soros is an original thinker…he basically just repeats the same idea over and over again…not that impressive.
how many billionaires are also accomplished authors? who even try to be?
almost none! and it’s not because their attempts are dismissed by envious academics or literary critics…
it’s because they ultimately have very little to say
How many accomplished authors have anything to say? very few, but they need the money so they say it anyway. Billionaires don’t, so they don’t.
“How many accomplished authors have anything to say? very few, but they need the money so they say it anyway. Billionaires don’t, so they don’t.”
Who do you read? People will put out garbage ‘self-help books’ just to make (more) money *gasp* just like Oprah.
Yes PP, so you think authors write fundamentally to earn money, ok.
take oprah. she’s not only rich, she’s a celebrity. a book with her name on it will sell. so what’s she written? nothing but self-help/how to get rich like me books, cookbooks, exercise books, and one other…
Organized by theme―joy, resilience, connection, gratitude, possibility, awe, clarity, and power―these essays offer a rare, powerful and intimate glimpse into the heart and mind of one of the world’s most extraordinary women―while providing readers a guide to becoming their best selves.
rotfl!
if oprah had a single thought in her head she’d have said so. she hasn’t.
Oprah said all she had to say on her talk show, which was the equivalent of writing thousands of books, off the cuff.
“nothing but self-help/how to get rich like me books”
Garbage.
“cookbooks”
Garbage.
“exercise books”
I know for a fact that knowledge about exercise has no bearing on one’s appearance or whatever, but what kind of book is this, lol. I’d love to be entertained.
Garbage.
All garbage books to cushion her wealth. Hmmm….
Are you fit? A lot of personal trainers look like slobs. I’d be hella embarrassed if I were one of those fat/chubby personal trainers.
I’m in great shape.
[photo redacted by PP, Dec 7, 2016]
If I were fat, this wouldn’t be my career.
You look great.
I went on a Tinder date with a bodybuilding “bro” a few weeks back. I almost called him a retard several times.
Thanks.
I’ve noticed that. Smart people in the BBing community are few and far between. There are intelligent people who bodybuild. But the dolts outweigh the smart people. Like the “bros” talk about “bro science” to get big and eat this, peanut butter will stick to your stomach (lol). People have no idea what they’re talking about.
I feel the worst for people stuck with a garbage “trainer” who doesn’t have clue to what he’s doing. Even the “certified” people are idiots. Even when I wasn’t certed, I was still leaps and bounds ahead of them. People get in it for the money, and trust me, the money is solid. But I do it because I love it. I love helping people achieve their goals. Something the average Joe Blow “trainer” can’t do.
My model is a revolving door. I want to see you for a few months at most so it can get drilled into your head and so you can change your habits. I go shopping with people sometimes too. It’s great. Doesn’t even feel like work.
I wish there were more intelligent people in the gym. It’d make gym conversations much better.
I lold. Not my cup of tea. Hate that stuff. I love my Italian women, but not like that.
And she’s not even Italian!
LOL, your shoulders, pecks, and fore arms are the same size as mine but i got bigger triceps and abs. You got bigger trapezius’ and biceps though.
Point taken but there’s a key difference: I’m a genius compared to Snooki.
RR she’s Spanish; adopted from Ecuador.
JS can tell us how this indicates “Spanish superiority” 😉
and, no, JS, she is not a “mongrel” afaict.
She looks Indian to me. The other one is Irish and Spaniard as well.
Oh no race realist, if it’s really you, your body is not harmonious at all.
“LOL, your shoulders, pecks, and fore arms are the same size as mine but i got bigger triceps and abs. You got bigger trapezius’ and biceps though.”
Melo, my nickname is ‘shoulders’ because they’re so big. Like 49 inches last I measured.
Also Melo, in my professional experience, people have body parts that are naturally big and respond better to lifting, so you don’t have to hit those body parts so much. I don’t work my arms, shoulders or triceps at all. Because they grow like weeds with indirect work. Figure out what your strong points are and focus on the weak points.
Obligatory “Do u even lift bro?”
Afrosapiens,
“Oh no race realist, if it’s really you, your body is not harmonious at all.”
How so? I’m still cutting so my abs haven’t popped yet.
Your hips are narrower than your two arms combined, your shoulders are waaaaay too large and your pecs are too flat.
Your hips are narrower than your two arms combined, your shoulders are waaaaay too large and your pecs are too flat.
The fact that you’re looking at his body is itself evidence that Rushton’s r/K theory was right. 🙂
“Your hips are narrower than your two arms combined, your shoulders are waaaaay too large and your pecs are too flat.”
No way are my hips narrower than my two arms combined. My shoulders are naturally large; I don’t even directly work them (I do literally 2 sets of overhead press a week). As I said to Melo, certain people have certain body parts that both respond better to stimulation as well as grow bigger/faster than other body parts. My chest sucks. My arms are really long so I’m a better puller (deadlifts, chin-ups, rows) than pusher (bench press, overhead press though I’m 20 pounds away from a bodyweight 1 rep max). Another factor is proportions. People with different somatypes will respond better to exercise and different things. Everyone is different and everyone responds to exercise differently. The genetic freaks of nature become bodybuilders.
“The fact that you’re looking at his body is itself evidence that Rushton’s r/K theory was right.”
No I’m just interested because I lift weight too, but I try to keep a natural appearance and harmonious proportions and RR is the opposite of what I’m trying to do. I would rather say that the r selected parasite is the one who shows off his shirtless body, no offense to you RR.
“Melo, my nickname is ‘shoulders’ because they’re so big. Like 49 inches last I measured.”
You measured from shoulder to shoulder length?
“people have body parts that are naturally big and respond better to lifting, so you don’t have to hit those body parts so much. I don’t work my arms, shoulders or triceps at all. Because they grow like weeds with indirect work. Figure out what your strong points are and focus on the weak points.”
well i felt like my triceps were naturally big but it could just be from bench pressing a lot in highschool. No matter how much I work out my biceps I cant seem to get them to gain any real considerable mass. When I try to work my wings or pecs(which aren’t small) i don’t really feel any “burn” and it feels like I’m not getting a good workout.
“certain people have certain body parts that both respond better to stimulation as well as grow bigger/faster than other body parts. My chest sucks. My arms are really long so I’m a better puller (deadlifts, chin-ups, rows) than pusher (bench press, overhead press though I’m 20 pounds away from a bodyweight 1 rep max). Another factor is proportions. People with different somatypes will respond better to exercise and different things.”
Maybe my long arms are the reason pull ups work out my chest better than bench presses.
My mom and stepdad are both personal trainers and to be honest I do have an interest in the subject. Do you have any good links to where I could learn more about it? I am wary of where I get my information from.
What do you eat?
“The fact that you’re looking at his body is itself evidence that Rushton’s r/K theory was right.”
How?
“The fact that you’re looking at his body is itself evidence that Rushton’s r/K theory was right.”
How?
Because Rushton argued that blacks (i.e. Afrosapiens) are more sexual, and looking at someone’s body is a sexual behavior. But I was being facetious of course.
“You measured from shoulder to shoulder length?”
Mid shoulder all the way around.
“well i felt like my triceps were naturally big but it could just be from bench pressing a lot in highschool. No matter how much I work out my biceps I cant seem to get them to gain any real considerable mass. When I try to work my wings or pecs(which aren’t small) i don’t really feel any “burn” and it feels like I’m not getting a good workout.”
You don’t need to feel a “burn”, you don’t need to do spot work unless you’re pretty advanced. Compounds and a good split are effective for a while.
“Maybe my long arms are the reason pull ups work out my chest better than bench presses.”
Meh.
“Do you have any good links to where I could learn more about it? I am wary of where I get my information from”
Jason Fung, Martin Berkhan, Brad Pilon, Layne Norton. Gary Taubes. Lyle McDonald. Alan Aragon.
“What do you eat?”
Basics. I chart and schedule my eating so I know how much I eat. Potatoes, turkey, chicken, beans, pasta, beef, etc. I just know about macro manipulation/cycling and it works well for me.
That’s basically what I eat. Is that for muscle building?/ or for losing weight?
Both. I just up the calories when I bulk and eat less when I cut.What matters is intensity in the gym, and macro cycling. And adequate kcal for muscle growth.
leangains.com
Tinder is full of “Bros”. Tinder is therefore prole. You won’t find a smart, high class man like Mugabe on Tinder. You might find a Philosturbator though. Santo? He’s gay.
Online dating is retarded. It’s full of dolts. Single mothers, blacks, fat people, people looking for an easy lay, etc.
philostubator is a joke.
The extent of his brilliant word-sparring is saying ‘ur stoopid’
‘Ur IQ is less than 105’
He’s simply not on the level of Mugabe or “Deal With it!”
I haven’t shown any signs of intelligence here. Partly because I see Internet arguments as futile. Philosturbator has high verbal IQ judging by his command of the language.
My honest ranking for a select few:
Mugabe
Lion/Deal with it!
Philosturbator/Peepee*
JS
*- Peepee’s autism makes her seem dumb at times.
I don’t know where to place Santo. He seems “wise” but the language barrier prevents a proper appraisal imo.
Mugabe is smart but unhinged, philosopher is similar although his IQ is well below Mugabe’s. I’m not sure about his Math IQ, I assume it’s high.
PP and Lion may not have the highest verbal IQs, but they have pretty rational thought processes unlike the latter two.
”Santo? He’s gay.”
And*
what it’s mean*
I hate people who talk/write like that, elaborate,
😉
Deal with it is homophobic, but it’s okay.
hilarious!
smart, high class, retarded, lazy, racist, sociopath, white trash, “smoldering” guy who should be in prison.
Don’t flatter yourself but I will say that your intelligence redeems you. I’ve never seen someone so smart. Peepee will get mad at me as she did when I first said it but it’s true.
I think I made Mugabe blush. He’s still an asshole, retard, racist, sociopath etc.. Just very intelligent.
Ultimately the point remains that beyond social selection/activities there is no survival of the smartest, AT ALL.
Sanitation has led to C-Sections being a viable option for women giving birth to BIGGER BRAINED BABIES. These babies, in Darwin’s view, would’ve been weak and died for the ‘good of the species’.
Yet they have large heads (a large part of why they can’t pass through the birth canals), and hence should have HIGH IQs.
Daily reminder that big-brained babies were born earlier and that being born earlier forced higher intelligence, a self-reinforcing cycle.
http://www.pnas.org/content/113/25/6874.abstract
In response to chimp-o-human, I mostly speak my mind here. Every post of PPs is derailed, but that’s what everyone wants. And I do speak on topics that ultimately point back to the ultimate source, that is IQ and Mugaboo’s narrative of America as the land of unequal opportunity.
In regards to White trash, Americans take the poop cake. It really does, and income inequality is the only reason.
Canuck Anglo Proles think French Canadians are paupers and Québec is the bum kingdom of the Great White North.
Wait, it turns out that Québec is far wealthier than most of the United States, including its miserable French quarter known as the Canjun Spice.
Putting aside 5% of the richest US taxpayers (that absorb every year 39% of national income) and 5% of the richest taxpayers in Québec, (which absorb 25%) is obtained for 95 % of the population, the following income per capita, according to the Quebec purchasing power:
As you can see, French Canadians have a higher purchasing index than their fellow American proles south of them. And these numbers were taken before the 2007 financial crisis, let alone now, where wealth inequality is much higher for the United States.
Now let’s look at the data for the average income between French Canada vs the USA:
It’s slightly higher for the USA, but Americans have to work 15% longer and only earn 4% more money.
Furthermore, Canada, including its French speaking bums are entitled to all kinds of generous gov’t welfare such as free healthcare, low tuition rates, low utility rates, and free daycare. Americans are indebted with sky high medical bills and tuition loans, and its declining middle class are living among poor undesirables.
And the chart above measures income per capital between the French Province and the United States, adjusted for equal hours worked. 99% of Québecois have a standard of living that is 10% higher than 99% of Americans.
Shocking isn’t it? And these stats come from pre-2007 financial crisis numbers, before the Jewish Wolves took all the cookies from the cookie jar.
http://www.lactualite.com/politique/niveau-de-vie-think-big-quebec-vs-usa/7282/.
Well I’m fairly agnostic as to people’s IQs here in general. That’s why I keep mentioning verbal IQ. Because its the only thing you can test here.
You have math, spatial, memory, visual-motor reaction and musical IQ that obviously can’t be tested here. There are a lot of commenters like Ciccione and Deal with Dildos that like ribbing me on my intelligence, but I’ve yet to see anything original come from them. And we never will. They are created to serve Master.
So its a bit like a well published author being judged by someone coming to a book convention being harangued by people that can’t write and whose sum intellectual contribution will be a footnote to someone else’s work (mine).
Now some people think spending 2 hours like Afrosemantics doing an ant crawl on a comment is ‘smart’. I could do something similar, which I will do later, as I’ve promised.
But before I do. I want you to know its a waste of time in advance and mainly pride that I’m going to do it.
As you all know, I’m right, deep down. Even you Afro…hahaha.
You don’t think I wouldn’t know who you would hire if you were starting a tech co? Who you would generally want working for you in a hedge fund?
You see, we rationalise our opinions rather than come to them in a rational manner. So even my intricate rebuttal…will be in vain.
“You see, we rationalise our opinions rather than come to them in a rational manner.”
You get it. If you wag a dog’s tail for it, is the dig happy?
Look into Jonathan Haidt and his social intuition theory.
If you want my ranking:
Myself
Mugabe (although his chronometric life IQ is sub par)
JS
Pump (mainly cos his math IQ is well above average, even if his verbal is ok)
Afro (haven’t decided yet, he seems obtuse and slow in an bad academic way)/Gypsy (is obtuse and slow in a bad academic way)
Don Ciccione (who thinks Lion is smart which tells me enough about his IQ)
Sub 110IQ
Deal With Dildos
Chigune
You see as Peepee says life is the best IQ test. I truly believe this. People assume life tests only quant/verbal, but in the end it will test everything, particularly if one lives in different countries as I have done.
For example, those with foresight to bodybuild is an IQ test decision in itself. I likewise am bulking now. So kudos to the lads above.
Many people here don’t have the verbal intelligence to see what I’m saying – accept Mugabe, Realist and JS to an extent. But perhaps they were inclined anyway not to have badfeelz at my racial commentary, due to being more intellectually open (a good proxy for IQ).
When I wail on blacks know that is because I don’t want Detroit or Kinshasa to happen to the West for obvious reasons. And I’m aware why Zion pushes Magic Negro stories for you kiddies which you haven’t shaken….and by my estimation…will never shake.
You think Sapiens would get a job in a law firm if he wasn’t black? Hahaha. I’ve worked with better lawyers in my professional life….and you sir, are no Abraham Lincoln.
Sapiens makes up for intellectual slowness by bloody minded grifting.
But he can never have an original thought. Or use proxy to get the answer.
If I’m too lazy to rebut in full…..it could be I can’t read an academic paper…..or what you’re saying is self evidently dumb if you have adequate general and social intelligence and I’m giving a sketch rather than a testimonial.
I have changed many of your opinions on morality, autism and race already.
”Many people here don’t have the verbal intelligence to see what I’m saying – [a]ccept Mugabe, Realist and JS to an extent. ”
Or, no have patience to read your verborragy.
Well,
Mugabby is a fake intellectual who believe Heidegger was a genius but he don’t know explain the Heidegger theories, period,
RR is a CLASSICAL trans-cognitive person, someone who want to be smart[er] and want other people see him like that.
So all the time he is internalizing ideas, thoughts and theories that Razib or other HBD-”genius’ believe it’s right. And he no have self-shame to believe that the opinion of a person he identifies as more intelligent by itself is already an argument, as well as in relation to what other academics tend to believe.
”Look!! Most anthropologists and geneticists know that evolution is not progressive and that a bacterium is superior to man ”
He’s weak in factual understanding and in argumentation.
Of course he’s not exactly like a classical leftoid student who believe in everything leftoid academics invent, but still it’s not enough to avoid ”fool himself without any self-awareness”.
JS seems a nice man, but… he, bizarrely speaking, have distorted historical facts to fit with their hispanic supremacism.
RR is extremely common among generic smart people.
My Hispanic facts are bizarre in a way that they are convincing, AND true.
Speaking of the lowest of the low, Latin American’s miscegenation is real. Intellectual Anglo Proles only masturbate and dream of an utopian mud stew, while their nations are only oozing in a rainbow sludge.
Spain discovered the New World and their sole intention was gold, Gold, and gold only and then they left for good. Anything in between was a side effect. Anglo Proles still do not know what they want from their colonial domains, and worse, such indecisiveness causes self-annihilation. It’s a matter of life and death, and Anglo Proles are choosing the latter.
And the shameful English Speaking jerks are even subpar to France’s New World Order in the Great White North who live a better and full-filling life, despite not striving and struggling for supremacy. Their Canuck prole neighbors are more ambitious while their Southern Prole neighbors are full of it, yet with all their striving, they end up with much ado about nothing:
Forget, about America, here are the average life expectancy among Canada’s Provinces:
They are not JS, stop to say stupid things.
And how is the Anglo Sphere better? I do not find many White immigrants in New Britain, expect for Pollacks and Ruskies. However, I do encounter many Euro Expats from various nations in the French Speaking-Canadian province, because it reminds them of Continental Europe in the New World.
“RR is a CLASSICAL trans-cognitive person, someone who want to be smart[er] and want other people see him like that.”
I lold.
“So all the time he is internalizing ideas, thoughts and theories that Razib or other HBD-”genius’ believe it’s right.”
Citing people who know what they’re talking about is bad. Citing sources is bad. Got it.
“And he no have self-shame to believe that the opinion of a person he identifies as more intelligent by itself is already an argument, as well as in relation to what other academics tend to believe.”
How do you know that I believe this? Have I ever said anything similar to this?
Show me where I’ve ever said this.
“He’s weak in factual understanding and in argumentation”
Please elaborate.
“Of course he’s not exactly like a classical leftoid student who believe in everything leftoid academics invent, but still it’s not enough to avoid ”fool himself without any self-awareness”.”
Lol what are you even saying here? What do I believe that leftist academics “invent”? Can you elaborate here as well?
“a bacterium is superior to man ”
Show me where I’ve said this. Red the article I put on this matter then get back and talk to me. I don’t use inferior and superior when talking about biological organisms.
Bacteria is life’s mode. Fact.
What are your views on morality? Evolved trait to help the group? Or something we do to figure out truth?
I’m 1/8 Jewish if you want to factor that into your “Calculations”
In all our dealings I’ve overturned your deductions once by showing you that your assumptions about testosterone aren’t well supported by scientific studies, and you’ve entirely misunderstood me despite my providing enough context to be understood.
I don’t think your verbal IQ is low, but it’s not as high as you think.
Don Ciccione is angry that I’m a very tribal guy and I keep insulting blacks and autists. Because his friends are autist losers like him (whos gfs are banging people like me in secret) and perhaps he has a magic negro connection in his life (probably his anus).
That is natural.
Don Ciccione wisely keeps information about him private and leaves small comments because it doesn’t take much to help me decode someone’s life trajectory and story like I did Mugabe and Pumpkin.
I will figure out who you are Don, I will embarrass you.
Yooos too stuuppid to get I’m write about de Magical Negros and Zion and ant people liking sugar cos its twue. Yooos never won a SCHULASHIP TO REPENTIN UZ COUNTRY TO INTERNATIOALLY OZ BREAKZ THE 6 FIGUZ COMING FROM ZE BOTTOM QUINTILE FAMILY BY MID TWENTIES DESPITE SCHIZO OZ GET MOST GULZ HAWNY TRU DESIGN OZZ HAVE AN ORIGINAL THOUGHT ANYONE CARED ABOUTZ>MAYBE UZ CUD FIGURE OUT HOW TO NOT LET ME FIGURE UZ OUT AND STILL KEEP POSTING FEMININE BUTT HURT XOMMENTARY HUH? THAT WUD BE UZ GREATEST ACHIEVEMENTARY IN LIFE ASIDE FROM CHERUB ESTROGEN SOAKED FLABBY FACE. YEAH?
….Nice try on my life history. Largely wrong in fact but good reasoning. You have some social intelligence. Better not write too many comments and choose words carefully. If you think you’re good, I can look at a person’s gait, face, eyes and clothes and have a pretty accurate assessment of what he thinks as he’s falling asleep every night.
DON CICCIONE, WITH YO BLESSINGS WE COME TO YOU O DON. IMA GONNA POST ABOUT THE MAGIC NEGWO WHO SPELLED HIS NAME COWWECLY AND GOT A NOBEL PWIZE AND MADEBA WHO FREED AFRICA FOR STWAIGHT FROM COMPTON TO RUN IT INTO THE GWOUND AND HOW MLK PLAGIIAZED HIS PHD IN FUCKING THEOLOGY COS HE GOT NO BRAINS BUT BIG BALLS FOR ZION. YESSA. WITH YO BLESSINGS GREAT DON.
Let’s start with:
Why are all soccer managers white, even for African National teams:
(a) Institutional racism
(b) The Roswell Incident
(c) They have low IQs
(d) They are afraid Don Ciccione will enter the football industry
While I’m on a roll….Why do people feel the need to explicitly rank IQs based on comments on a blog forum anyway. Maybe:
(a) They believe it will contribute to discussion
(b) They think it will demonstrate their opinion matters for the first time in their lives
(c) An expression of contempt
(d) They don’t have the social intelligence to understand that if I can use my mind to make money/women…I can use it to ego blast them off the thread like Chigune.
So…let’s take Deal With Dildos who was stupid enough to post personal information.
Take it away Bing Cosby.
I’m dream-ing of a bipolar Christ-mas.
Just like the ones of good looking guys like Phil
Where do Greedy eyes glisten? And vagina’ moist-en?
But by 30 you’ll no longer be a sperm urinal in the snow!
I’m dreaming of a white xanax.
Just like your trade down omega partner!!
Jealous of blondies…..oh yeah!
But just because you do jocks…doesn’t make you a blondie.
You are an afterthought 5.
Lose the body fat.
I expect her to have blue hair in about a year.
The bodybuilders will disappear by 28/29…on your trajectory maybe sooner. You have poor impulse control…you’ll age quicker.
You’re not smart. You are at best a token in the office. But you’re not good looking, so you won’t get into the white shoe ones.
Try imagining what Mr Bodybuilder says about you to friends over beers. I know, I can tell you:
“Yo Phil, had this colombian girl over on Tuesday. Great ass, crazy bitch. And some other babe Thursday.
Who was that?
Was chillin and had nothing on so invited over this one.
Was she hot?
Yeah she was alright (“Im ebarrassed a bit”). Got it over her face and got rid of her ass. Hopefully something better on Friday night man”.
Finally notice the annoying know it all brow….parasite/greedy eyes, and fragile mental strength precluding a gradual mental neurosis. Must suck to be a low Sexual Market Value sperm thrascan for winners like me until 30.
Then its curtains and contempt at the more beautiful.
As I said, lose the body fat and stop thinking ideology is going to make you hotter. It won’t. The gym will. But you’re bodyfat suggests you can’t do hard work.
Notice the violin squealing as you’re playing this Deal With Dildo.
This is the sound of your mind as reality rushes in to your ego.
I must say though, that this girl’s only problem is her weight. She is actually a good person and has a more feminine face. You can see she is a nice person in her eyes. So in the amazing possibility she sees this, its only due to passing resemblance to Dealwithlowsmv that I post this and I apologise.
Focus mainly on the violin here which is the sound of DealwithDildos mind.
You’re a shitty person for saying all that. I would never get so personal and mean-spirited even on the Internet. Btw almost everything you said is wrong.
I guess all the women you know are sluts.
“Sperm Urinal” – Eww
“sperm thrascan” – puke
And I don’t hook up with bodybuilders, retard. I don’t have a weight problem. And I don’t go clubbing because they’re full of retarded douchebags like you.
You’re no Mugabe!
Philosopher you’re blind bro. She doesn’t look fat to me.
the idea that men care only about looks and women care only about status is not only an exaggeration…it actually affects how men and women interpret their attraction…
the philosturbator is a product of ideology…in this case the ideology of gender.
and it’s amazing how this ideology is so hard-wired…people can’t see reality.
i took an inventory of all the women and girls from age 8 (i was hetero before i had any idea what sex was) i’ve fallen in love with…
i counted 7.
were they good looking?
at the time i interpreted my attraction to them as…they’re so beautiful…they’re ingrid bergmans in Casablanca. was that it?
in the internet age where people have these records of themselves….
the bottom line:
1. yes these were better than average physical specimens, but not bergmans.
2. they were also all…objectively…high IQ…they were high achievers educationally.
3. and my perversion…of which i was unaware without reflection…all of them had harsh, whiny, accusatory voices.
4. more interesting…all but one of them failed on the man front…divorce or never married.
supposing women are like men but interpret their attraction differently…a woman says…i’m attracted to him because he’s smart or he makes me laugh or whatever.
…
my own experience is that women are just like men objectively speaking rather than ideologically speaking…the only difference is that if a man is physically and intellectually attractive…but he has low status…given the economic imbalance in the genders, and that women will be stuck with the kids if the marriage doesn’t work out…they will be attracted to these losers…and, at the same time, be disgusted by them.
the most gender equal country on earth is iceland. even though men tend not to live as long as women…even though big people tend not to live as long as smaller people…
1. icelandic men are the tallest and most robust men in the world.
2. they’re #2, just behind switzerland, for longest life expectancy for males…higher than japan…81.2 years.
this fact has some significance. what exactly it is i don’t know. but when world’s strongest man champions are the second longest lived men in the world…makes you say…hmmmm!
why are guys like living so long?
in america guys like that die before age 70…often before 60.
freaks like Hafþór Júlíus Björnsson.
BUGabby fall in love with icelandic muscles….
No Mugabe.
I wrote about her looks, because that’s what I know a woman cares about most, more than wealth, education level, IQ, family, ideology etc.
Steve Sailer’s 1st Law of Female Journalism: All articles have to argue why the author is actually more sexually attractive than you think.
How the fuck did Philosturbator make all these inferences from a photo of my eyes? Is it possible? No. Is Philosturbator a retard? Yes! Does he know what he’s talking about? No. Does he have any manners? Absolutely not.
maybe…
but why?
why is it that way?
if it is?
think about it:
1. women have a dick.
2. women have a scrotum.
3. the genetalia of men and women is the same…in a manner of speaking.
4. the only difference is men have no uterus…but they do get hernias in their “vagina”…
this is basic anatomy.
The hormones are different. Testosterone vs Estrogen. Our hormones rule us. There’s other factors but it seems you’re looking for a biological difference.
Psychotic outbreak.
No, bad temper.
Psychosis is losing touch with reality.
There’s nothing I’ve said that isn’t true about DealwithLowSMV.
I see you can’t read when you’re psychotic.
I said you were stupid because prior to this comment your comebacks consisted of ‘you have a low IQ’…..
but you changed it up a little bit this time.
Kudos for trying.
You identify as Native American because there is nothing remarkable about you.
You use tinder to get hot guys, because standing next to normal looking girls and hotties in a club means your are out of your depth.
Ironically your ego means you can’t settle for the Don Cicciones of this world.
You’re an SJW. So you’re bipolar leaning on an ideology to make you hotter. But ideas don’t make the world better for girls. Hottness does.
But I could tell the neurosis from the eyes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XCVnV5CGh0
good on ya don.
i recall blasting sinatra from my dorm room when it was allowed…the whole dorm was having some “occasion”…
what did i blast?
what’s my favorite from “old bue eyes”?
1. you named it!
2. fly me to the moon!
3. luck be a lady!
there are two types of people…
1. italian.
2. those who wish they were italian.
i am NOT…;(
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/739620/Maria-Ladenburger-murder-EU-official-daughter-killed-by-refugee-Aghan
Oops
Philosopher is, along with JS and Santoculto, the most stupid and delusional person I’ve seen on this blog.
PP, how do you feel about your blog attracting such specimens in such large numbers ?
Apesapiens, you were already taking time to show your true face.
The story of apesapiens is touching you do not think *
Only that there is a problem. Ape is the villain of his story. You do not have to do much to see your poison come out of your mouth.
He was adopted by a white family, went to live in a country that received him, and what he does **
He wants to destroy the country that hosted him, the country of his adoptive parents.
He, just like his blacklover lover BUGabby, are two fantastic examples of a glaring reality
Wisdom always overcomes intelligencem always…
If I were the PP I would have prevented Bugabby from continuing to ruin his blog, among others, but PP wants to see the circus catch fire, does not it *
Ape show the same crap always, he is a kind of clone of the African blogger of the UNZ platform.
What they believe *
– Black Africans are, equal or even superior to European whites in intelligence,
– Environmental differences fully explain the ” current ” discrepancy,
– The only reason for sub-Saharan Africa to be that disaster is because of the colonization of the white man,
– IQ does not measure intelligence, but when any study demonstrates some remote equalization of scores, read between whites and blacks, so IQ is important,
– When the environment where blacks live is exactly the same, millimetrically to the environment of whites (read: whites build and hold for themselves), then they will become like whites … or higher,
– They are “anti-racist” because they are against “racism”, very convenient, because they are totally favorable to mass immigration to white countries, and miscegenation (what do you think about it RR*),
– African immigrants living in the US and Europe are the pure representation of the average African = = = smarter than the native European,
– Afro-Americans are dumb, yes, they say that, they are dumber than African-Africans, because they mingled with rednecks (in this case, it can be a “hereditarian” because it is politically correct).
Just as BUGabby, like others here, has simply internalized factoids that corroborate their distorted beliefs of reality, even when all evidence shows the exact opposite, evidence on a planetary scale.
And they are extremely arrogant…
Waiting for the English version.
“African immigrants living in the US and Europe are the pure representation of the average African = = = smarter than the native European,”
I don’t think Afrosapiens said this.
Indeed, I never said it, I believe in equality and in the high malleability of IQ. So I’m not even trying to find out who is dumber or who is smarter. There are more important things in life than that. See the third world, they what they need is not to increase their IQ scores, they need to get rid of disease, malnutrition, corruption, brain drain, capital flight, war, foreign interventionism, IMF neo-colonialism and so on . If that increases their IQs, well that’s fine, if it doesn’t, that’s just as fine.
See the third world, they what they need is not to increase their IQ scores, they need to get rid of disease, malnutrition, corruption, brain drain, capital flight, war, foreign interventionism, IMF neo-colonialism and so on
HBD would argue that all the problems you cite were caused by low IQ in the first place.
Yes but what HBD would argue is irrelevant to real world challenges. The Flynn effect is most likely the consequence than the cause of development.
“HBD would argue that all the problems you cite were caused by low IQ in the first place.”
Exactly PP. Whether their IQ is 70 or 80 right now, getting rid of their negatives will raise their IQ close to 1 SD.
>Philosopher is, along with JS and Santoculto, the most stupid
Nah.
He’s wrong here and there because instead of using a mixed method of heuristics and reason he basically depends on his heuristics lending them the artificial credibility of the name “Meta logic” but the reason that he has meta-logic is that he’s encountered theories that explain in a simple, likely way why things are the way they are in the world, like the r/K theory.
Broadly speaking, the world DOES apparently conform to Rushton’s predictions and other explainations involve an increasingly complex series of assumptions assertions and beliefs that there’s arguably no need to accept until at the very least they’re academically well supported.
His problem is he generally speaking rejects well-supported academics of things that defy his heuristics.
No skin off my or your nose though.
Most of the people here are bright.
academic studies*
“Most of the people here are bright.”
Lol! Santoculto is bright ? He spends his time writing nonsense to himself.
JS is bright ? Most of what he says is 100% imagination
Philosopher is bright ? He can’t formulate coherent thoughts and retorts to ad hominem way easily.
Not only are they dumb, but they are totally deranged. Tell me, would you send your kids on some holidays at one of the three stooges’ ? And when you go to normal blogs and forums, do you meet these kind of persons. No, obvious mental illness almost only shows up on the racist side of the internet. But I’d love to see them having those discussions in real life, that would be so much fun, some kind of one flew over the cuckoo’s nest.
>Lol! Santoculto is bright ?
Did I say that?
>JS is bright?
Did. I. Say. That?
>Philosopher is bright ?
Absolutely.
He’s right about heuristics, for the most part, he’s creative with his language and generally well-apprehends the position of the person he’s talking to even if it is then distorted through his lens of ego or presumption or whatever.
>but they are totally deranged.
Hey, maybe. I ain’t their shrink. I suspect at least some of these guys are just edgy online fauxiopaths.
>No, obvious mental illness almost only shows up on the racist side of the internet.
Bigotry certainly does, but PP ain’t racist by a long shot.
PP is too leftist to be a racist. Though he implies superiority in biology (something that “racists” do) and I disagree with him on progressive evolution, I enjoy this blog. Great conversation here.
“He’s right about heuristics, for the most part”
The only type of knowledge he has is anecdotal experience, and I’m sure a large part of what he says is lie.
“he’s creative with his language ”
Is creative a way to say incoherent ?
“well-apprehends the position of the person he’s talking to even if it is then distorted through his lens of ego or presumption or whatever.”
As far as I’m concerned, he has not gotten an ounce of who I am.
>The only type of knowledge he has is anecdotal experience,
Maybe but the way he extrapolates that out, presumably by realizing that simple factors are likely to explain said anecdotal experience is a reasonable and generally effective heuristic.
Sure, when said heuristic disagrees with empirical evidence time to give up the goose but it’s not, in itself, a bad process.
>Is creative a way to say incoherent ?
C’mon now. He’s coherent. He’s wrong at least he was whenever I ran in with him, but in explaining his ideas he’s pretty coherent.
>I’m sure a large part of what he says is lie.
I’m pretty sure exaggeration is rife on this blog, more bs than Jay
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GzWiXCHLek
Apw sapiens is hopeless,
In some dimension where justice reigns he must be killed.
Bugabby is other case for psychiatriy as well RR, anxious to jump to the “smartchos” brigade.
Ape sapiens is already unable to accept as a reasonable mature person “hard” truts about their lovely people, don’t expect he will be able to identify a genius person.
He can’t argue with mw and especially about my numerous insights but also their stupid and childish beliefs that fuels their gigantic narcissism and hope.
He have the same nonsense beliefs than their chimp bro Sheenzala…
Both use huge verboreagy to say what could be reduced in some topics. Both avoid a real talk, a real confrontation of point of views, direct way. So as good coward they are they use difficult and pedantic language to deceive many white trash “$martiers”. And, surprise, many white trash amartchos really start to believe in their academic voodoo.
In contrast I really believe he is smarter than me in the cognitive departments, higher verbal vocabulary at least in English? No doubt. Great in matha? Probably. In crystalized capacity? Yes I agree. But in the rational department and or factual understanding is blatantly evident he is this garbage.
Gypsan is other one here who think he know something about judge people capabilities. He believe…
Philolspher, what generally happen here, say
– truisms
– “some” times he just repeat mainstream knowledge about things like autism
– he really believe I’m exactly like a typical academic scientist leaning-autismua.
– He despise the value of semantic go understand the world.
Intelligent??
Most people are intelligent in their own way.
Smarter than the avg?
No doubt.
Bright??
I don’t think so.
So many people here seems are subconsciously megalomaniacal.
Compare me with Js just because we share some ideological similarities is for amateurs.
What about me?
Santo, who the hell cares?
Guys, why do you even bother to mind Santoculto ?
Honestly it is obvious that it is impossible to have meaningful discussions with him.
Guys, why do you even bother to mind Santoculto ?
Honesty, who thinks they can have meaningful discussions with him. He’s such a waste of time.
Deal
By now you just attack Bugabby, specially, without show your point of view or subsequent developments. But if you continue like that I will no have good news for you.
RR,
It’s a personal lament?
Phill look smarter than Afroaapiena.
Someone who are able to criticize their own groups (race, sexual preferences, ideology…) and without become a self-sadomasochist is in the very good path.
And Santo, before you say anything about my word choice against, read this.
Taboo word fluency and knowledge of slurs and general pejoratives: deconstructing the poverty-of-vocabulary myth
Highlights
•
Taboo word fluency is correlated with general fluency.
•
Taboo words comprise pejoratives and slurs.
•
Taboo fluency is correlated with neuroticism and openness.
Abstract
A folk assumption about colloquial speech is that taboo words are used because speakers cannot find better words with which to express themselves: because speakers lack vocabulary. A competing possibility is that fluency is fluency regardless of subject matter—that there is no reason to propose a difference in lexicon size and ease of access for taboo as opposed to emotionally-neutral words. In order to test these hypotheses, we compared general verbal fluency via the Controlled Oral Word Association Test (COWAT) with taboo word fluency and animal word fluency in spoken and written formats. Both formats produced positive correlations between COWAT fluency, animal fluency, and taboo word fluency, supporting the fluency-is-fluency hypothesis. In each study, a set of 10 taboo words accounted for 55–60% of all taboo word data. Expressives were generated at higher rates than slurs. There was little sex-related variability in taboo word generation, and, consistent with findings that do not show a sex difference in taboo lexicon size, no overall sex difference in taboo word generation was obtained. Taboo fluency was positively correlated with the Big Five personality traits neuroticism and openness and negatively correlated with agreeableness and conscientiousness. Overall the findings suggest that, with the exception of female-sex-related slurs, taboo expressives and general pejoratives comprise the core of the category of taboo words while slurs tend to occupy the periphery, and the ability to generate taboo language is not an index of overall language poverty.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S038800011400151X
“PP is too leftist to be a racist. Though he implies superiority in biology”
PP is a perfect example of cognitive dissonance, he sees himself and he’d like to be seen as a non-racist, liberal high IQ hipster. But he can’t help but celebrating conservative values, traditional hierarchy and above all, the inherent inequality of the races.
For a long time I thought PP was a teenager, I couldn’t get how a mature person could claim to be a certain way and act in total opposition without even being aware of it.
PP is a perfect example of cognitive dissonance, he sees himself and he’d like to be seen as a non-racist, liberal high IQ hipster. But he can’t help but celebrating conservative values, traditional hierarchy and above all, the inherent inequality of the races.
For a long time I thought PP was a teenager, I couldn’t get how a mature person could claim to be a certain way and act in total opposition without even being aware of it.
LOL! The last thing I want to be seen as is a hipster. There’s nothing contradictory about being anti-racist and believing in HBD, because racism is a primal emotion while HBD is a scientific judgement that emerged from the enlightenment and the Darwinian revolution. I believe plants are less evolved than animals, but that doesn’t mean I don’t love the wilderness, gardens, and pretty flowers. It’s actually HBD deniers who preach equality on an abstract level to compensate for the fact that they dislike blacks on the individual level. That’s where the most racism and cognitive dissonance is.
I request a post on the above link PP.
“For a long time I thought PP was a teenager, I couldn’t get how a mature person could claim to be a certain way and act in total opposition without even being aware of it.”
I thought he was a woman. I still do. He has a very feminine typing style. He types like a lot of women I know.
I really don’t think, if he were a woman, he would do a lot of noise about it, like HBD chick. His obsession for Oprah and TV hosts may seem feminine, but he also enjoys horror movies, his verbal IQ is abysmally low (the guy understands nothing, doesn’t notice subtlety in the meaning of words). His profile is more that of an creepy immature prole.
Who left the ” sapiens ” cage open, who was *
He’s out of control.
And now he is offending the PP, some truths there, everybody already knew, and of course, inventions of his disturbed mind, closer to a bacterium.
He called the PP a prole.
He must hate mirrors …
“HBD is a scientific judgement”
Lol, you can only believe in HBD if you ignore tons of scientific facts that contradict it.
“It’s actually HBD deniers who preach equality on an abstract level to compensate for the fact that they dislike blacks on the individual level.”
Yes, HBD deniers secretly worship the KKK, adore Trump, oppose inter-racial marriage, strictly refuse interaction with blacks, say black lives matter is a terrorist organization. Yep that makes sense.
” I believe plants are less evolved than animals,”
Yawn.
“” I believe plants are less evolved than animals,”
Yawn.”
He’s unredeemable about this. He won’t understand that “evolution” just means genetic change without implication about progressiveness or archaism, complexity or simplicity. In fact, the most evolved forms of life are bacteria.
He’s unredeemable about this. He won’t understand that “evolution” just means genetic change without implication about progressiveness or archaism, complexity or simplicity.
Evolution can and does go “backwards” all the time. In theory there’s nothing inherently progressive about evolutionary change. But theory and reality are two different things.
In fact, the most evolved forms of life are bacteria.
Explain
I fully agree with you.
“In fact, the most evolved forms of life are bacteria.”
Read this.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_bacteria.html
Bacteria are life’s mode.
Yep, Gould says it all. Not sure Pumpkin can understand a bit of it though.
Yep, Gould says it all. Not sure Pumpkin can understand a bit of it though.
Says the person who didn’t even understand what a correlation was. I had a better understanding of evolution by age ten than you have today. You’re merely repeating clichés about evolution with no subtle understanding of how your views could even be empirically tested.
Of course,
RR just repeat the same fucking thing all the time as a robot with defect.
I already destroy all of ”your” weak ”arguments” and he can’t agree with me, probably because i’m famous as Khan or other…
in the ideal world RR would be Invited to leave this conversation.
He will continue to say the same fucking things without realize how mono-repetitive he is.
and our APE here
wrong in everything
Just shoot a gun in their fake-big brain to stop with this half-human torment.
UNFORTUNATELY this two crap seems quite common in ”academia”.
”i’m not famous”
Fair enough, if we wish to honor multicellular creatures, but we are still not free of the parochialism of our scale. If we must characterize a whole by a representative part, we certainly should honor life’s constant mode. We live now in the “Age of Bacteria.” Our planet has always been in the “Age of Bacteria,” ever since the first fossils—bacteria, of course—were entombed in rocks more than 3 billion years ago.
On any possible, reasonable or fair criterion, bacteria are—and always have been—the dominant forms of life on Earth. Our failure to grasp this most evident of biological facts arises in part from the blindness of our arrogance but also, in large measure, as an effect of scale. We are so accustomed to viewing phenomena of our scale—sizes measured in feet and ages in decades—as typical of nature.
Great quote.
“RR just repeat the same fucking thing all the time as a robot with defect.
I already destroy all of ”your” weak ”arguments” and he can’t agree with me, probably because i’m famous as Khan or other…
in the ideal world RR would be Invited to leave this conversation.”
Same thing, it’s not refuted. PP constantly cites the same people, Rushton, Bonner, etc on progress in evolution. He talks about brain size being a tell about progress. PP did you see the fallacies on brain size I linked the other day?
There is not more evolved, superior or whatever. Once you understand this, Santoculto, once you read a few books on evolutionary biology and the evolution of complex organisms then you’ll understand where I’m coming from.
Not going to hold my breath, though.
“You’re merely repeating clichés”
Please tell us how they are cliches.
” no subtle understanding of how your views could even be empirically tested.”
Already done.
The minimal complexity of vertebral columns probably did not change (indeed, the actual minimum seems to have remained close to the theoretical minimum), ancestor-descendant comparisons in subclades of mammals reveals no branching bias, and the mean subclade skew was negative, all pointing to a passive system.
Click to access Mechanisms-HQ.pdf
Gould’s analysis:
All the tests provide evidence for a passive trend and no drive to complexity. McShea found twenty-four cases of significant increases or decreases in comparing the range of modern descendants with an ancestor (out of a potential sample of ninety comparisons, or five groups of mammals, each with six variables measured in each of three ways; for the other comparison, average descendants did not differ significantly from ancestors). Interestingly, thirteen of these significant changes led to decreases in complexity, while only nine showed an increase. (The difference between thirteen and nine is not statistically significant, but I am wryly amused, given all traditional expectation in the other direction, that more comparisons show increasing rather than decreasing complexity.
PP how many books by Gould have you actually read?
Please tell us how they are cliches.
Because it’s the first thing you learn in a high school biology class and the first thing you unlearn when you learn to think.
” no subtle understanding of how your views could even be empirically tested.”
Already done.
Where does it state “we proved evolution is not progressive”?
I have thought long and hard about it. I’ve done a lot of reading on it. It is a common misconception that evolution is progressive. So just because you learn that in biology class in high school makes it a cliche and wrong?
Yet you saying it’s the first thing learned in biology and the first thing you unlearn when you learn how to think is ridiculous because that doesn’t say why it’s cliche.
When people say evolution is progressive, they men progressing towards something, whether that be complexity or some type of other variable. Well I showed that there is no drive towards complexity in evolution, and that analysis shows a passive trend.
Can you state your definition of progressive evolution?
Can you state your definition of progressive evolution?
My definition is succinct: If you’re a low branch on the evolutionary tree, and you don’t do anymore branching, then on average, you’re less impressive than higher branches (within the same taxa).
Remember:
Huxley: I once tried to define evolution in an overall way, somewhat along these lines: a one way process, irreversible in time, producing apparent novelties and greater variety leading and leading to higher degrees of organization.
Darwin: What is “higher”?
Huxley: More differentiated, more complex but at the same time more integrated.
Darwin: But parasites are also produced.
Huxley: I mean a higher degree of orginization in general, as shown by the upper level attained.
This people don’t trust in the patterns that can be viewed at naked eye, supposedly, the most obvious ones.
why they believe they can understand the patterns which are under the surface if they already don’t understand/accept the reality that can be viewed at naked eye*
hopeless##
“This people don’t trust in the patterns that can be viewed at naked eye, supposedly, the most obvious ones.”
Bacteria make up about half of the earth’s biomass. They’ve been life’s mode since the beginning. You can’t see that with the naked eye though.
“why they believe they can understand the patterns which are under the surface if they already don’t understand/accept the reality that can be viewed at naked eye*”
What’s there to understand? Multicellular organisms are near the right wall of complexity. Bacteria is the very left wall. No organism can become less complex then that. So thinking about it, there was only one way for life to go, towards the right wall. But there is no evidence for a drive towards complexity and mountains of evidence points to a passive trend.
I will not repeat my champion arguments with a hopeless person as you, if you have a good memory (no, you no have) you will remember some of them.
PP: why can’t you understand that evolution means genetic change and nothing more ? One genetic change that causes a terrible disease is as much evolution as one genetic change that boosts your IQ by 200 points.
PP: why can’t you understand that evolution means genetic change and nothing more ? One genetic change that causes a terrible disease is as much evolution as one genetic change that boosts your IQ by 200 points.
I agree that evolutionary change means change and nothing more. But for whatever reason, it seems to correlate with subjective measures of progress. There’s been a trend towards increased encephalization across 140 million years of dinosaur evolution, 65 million years of mammal evolution, and a tripling of brain size in 4 million years of human evolution.
Can evolution go backwards? Absolutely. Dogs have evolved to cancer, brains occasionally shrink, but these are the exceptions, not the rule.
What RR, and apparently you, can’t grasp is that just because evolution has no purpose, doesn’t mean billions of years of trial and error doesn’t lead to progressive trends.
“If you’re a low branch on the evolutionary tree, and you don’t do anymore branching, then on average, you’re less impressive than higher branches (within the same taxa).”
Explanation: The idea of “higher” and “lower” organisms is intuitively appealing and has many antedents in the history of science; however, this idea refelcts a human-centered, biased perspective on the biological world in which other organisms are measured by their similarity to humans. Taking an unbiased view, it is clear there is no universal yardstick against which we can measure species. For example, we could focuse on photosynthetic ability (which would make plants the “higher” beings), sheer number of indviduals (which would pick out bacteria and microorganisms as special),or any number of other traits. Each trait would suggest a very different group of “higher” organisms. Diagrams that represent relationships using a central trunk with side branches reinforce the incorrect idea that evolution is directional and progressive. Phylogenetic trees are preffered because they convey information about evolutionary relationships without reinforcing intuitive ideas about evolutionary progress by placing some taxa above or below others. A similar intuitive idea is that some living species are more evolved than others; this idea is explored in the section about time.
From that backwater at Berkeley.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evotrees_interpretations
This idea you espouse, PP, is such a common misconception that biology students have that numerous papers have been written on misconceptions of phylogenetic trees.
Please read this section of this paper.
Go to the section “how not to read evolutionary trees”.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12052-008-0035-x
Did you take biology in college? Have you read Darwin or Gould? Not summaries but actually read their books?
Your misconceptions on phylogeny are huge. There are numerous papers put there that talk about these misconceptions that clever students have. And you still have them. That’s not how evolution works.
.https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/10/25/misconceptions-on-evolutionary-trees-and-more-on-evolutionary-progress/
This idea you espouse, PP, is such a common misconception that biology students have that numerous papers have been written on misconceptions of phylogenetic trees.
You’re so incredibly confused RR. All that paper is saying is that IN THEORY, there’s nothing intrinsically more evolved about being on a high branch, and I agree 100%. But the reality is that splits in trees correlate with evolutionary developments (i.e. drought divides one primate population into two) and the more evolutionary developments you’re descended from, the more evolved you are BY DEFINITION. You’re simply not subtle enough to distinguish theory from reality, so you just repeat these same clichés over and over.
Now whether more evolved correlates with superior is a separate debate which you constantly conflate, but you first need to grasp the basic concept that descending from more splits correlates with more evolved.
>it seems to correlate with subjective measures of progress
I mean it’s pretty obvious why it would. The changes that allow you to survive remain and those that don’t don’t and our subjective measures of progress are mostly related to problem-solving to begin with because we value things that allow us to live and live more comfortably.
I mean it’s pretty obvious why it would. The changes that allow you to survive remain and those that don’t don’t and our subjective measures of progress are mostly related to problem-solving to begin with because we value things that allow us to live and live more comfortably
But even in plants, who followed a completely different path than us, those that are most evolved would tend to be judged most impressive.
“subjective”
The point
^^^^
Your head
^^^^
“There’s been a trend towards increased encephalization across 140 million years of dinosaur evolution, 65 million years of mammal evolution, and a tripling of brain size in 4 million years of human evolution.”
Fallacies of Progression in Theories of Brain-Size Evolution
The tacit assumption that relative enlargement and differentiation of brains reflect a progressive evolutionary trend toward greater intelligence is a major impediment to the study of brain evolution. Theories that purport to establish a linear scale for this presumed correlation between brain size and intelligence are undermined by the absence of an unbiased allometric baseline for estimating differences in encephalization, by the incompatibility of allometric analyses at different taxonomic levels, by the nonlinearity of the criterion of subtraction used to partition the somatic and cognitive components of encephalization, and by the failure to independently demonstrate any cognitive basis for the regularity of brain/body allometry. Analyzing deviations from brain/body allometric trends in terms of encephalization obfuscates the complementarity between brain and body size and ignores selection on body size, which probably determines most deviations. By failing to analyze the effects of allometry at many levels of structure, comparative anatomists have mistaken methodological artifacts for progressive evolutionary trends. Many structural changes, which are assumed to demonstrate progression of brain structure from primitive to advanced forms, are the results of allometric processes. Increased brain size turns out to have some previously unappreciated functional disadvantages.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227312304_Fallacies_of_Progression_in_Theories_of_Brain-Size_Evolution
W”hat RR, and apparently you, can’t grasp is that just because evolution has no purpose, doesn’t mean billions of years of trial and error doesn’t lead to progressive trends.”
Please give McShea 1994, 1996, and 1998 a read.
subjective”
The point
Musical talent, artistic ability, social skills, beauty, charisma, historical influence are all things we measure subjectively, but when subjective impressions from many people intercorrelate, they qualify as objective empirical measures.
Fallacies of Progression in Theories of Brain-Size Evolution
The tacit assumption that relative enlargement and differentiation of brains reflect a progressive evolutionary trend toward greater intelligence is a major impediment to the study of brain evolution. Theories that purport to establish a linear scale for this presumed correlation between brain size and intelligence are undermined
Good lord you’re hopeless. There’s not a scientific theory in existence that hasn’t been undermined by something. Undermine != debunked. All you do is copy and paste huge swaths of text. Citing facts is fine, but it’s really boring to read long quotes that are only peripherally related to the point at hand.
Please give McShea 1994, 1996, and 1998 a read.
Please don’t read anything, since you can’t think critically about what you read. Now I know why the aristocrats preferred their proles to stay illiterate. Ah, the good old days.
“But the reality is that splits in trees correlate with evolutionary developments (i.e. drought divides one primate population into two) and the more evolutionary developments you’re descended from, the more evolved you are BY DEFINITION”
When there is a branch on a phylogeny that doesn’t mean it’s a speciation event. It can occur at any time in the line.
“You’re simply not subtle enough to distinguish theory from reality”
Define theory.
“Now whether more evolved correlates with superior is a separate debate which you constantly conflate”
In my view, it does. If one organism is “more progressed” or “more evolved” than denotes “superior”. Though I’ve shown 6 trillion times that this is a horribly wrong view to hold when speaking bout biology.
“but you first need to grasp the basic concept that descending from more splits correlates with more evolved.”
More evolved meaning more evolutionary change? In which “direction”? Right or left? More splits means evolution occured….. And evolution isn’t progress soooo…. What’s that tell you?
The idea of “advancement” is not scientific idea.
There is no universal scale for “advancement” that favors human-like traits over spider-like, whale-like, or fir-like traits. We can use phylogenetics to study the evolution of eyes, photosynthetic ability, or any other trait, but such traits are not the equivalent of evolutionary advancement. Second, note that taxa with extreme versions of traits (e.g., complex eyes or a complicated photosynthetic pathway) may occur on any terminal branch irrespective of branch location. Tree designers sometimes place such taxa near the top or right-hand side of a phylogeny, but by rotating branches around nodes, we can generate many equivalent phylogenies in which taxa with extreme traits appear in different positions on the tree.
From Berkeley.
When you talk about advancement you’re talking philosophically and are leaving the realm of science.
When there is a branch on a phylogeny that doesn’t mean it’s a speciation event. It can occur at any time in the line.
Do you know what a split on an evolutionary tree even means? It means one population split into two or more. Now why do populations split? Because one or more populations moves to a new environment. Now what happens when you’re in a new environment? Evolution. Now what does evolution cause? Speciation.
Now do you understand why splits on the evolutionary tree correlate with evolutionary development? Is it possible to split over and over and over, and no evolutionary change occur? Yes, so in theory Berkeley is right when they parrot the cliché about position on trees being meaningless. But is it likely? Hell NO!
More evolved meaning more evolutionary change?
Exactly
In which “direction”? Right or left? More splits means evolution occured…..
In any direction
And evolution isn’t progress soooo…. What’s that tell you?
If evolution wasn’t progressive we wouldn’t judge more evolved life forms to be more impressive than less evolved life forms. Evolution may appear to zig zag in no particular direction in the short run, but over billions of years of trial and error, life gets more and more impressive.
“What RR, and apparently you, can’t grasp is that just because evolution has no purpose, doesn’t mean billions of years of trial and error doesn’t lead to progressive trends.”
The more a genome diversifies (evolves), the higher the chance that beneficial mutations appear and that they undergo natural selection. But the meaningful factor is not evolution per se, it’s chance.
>those that are most evolved would tend to be judged most impressive.
Ah well yes, but for generally speaking different reasons.
We’re impressed by the sophistication and complexity and the sophisticated ways in which plants have evolved to solve problems in their environments, for example.
Less evolved creatures with less sophisticated features may be able to solve the same problems but in not nearly so sophisticated a manner.
We’re impressed by the sophistication and complexity and the sophisticated ways in which plants have evolved to solve problems in their environments, for example.
Well, whatever the reason, the more evolved a life form, the more impressive it is, on average. Thus evolution is progressive.
“Musical talent, artistic ability, social skills, beauty, charisma, historical influence are all things we measure subjectively, but when subjective impressions from many people intercorrelate, they qualify as objective empirical measures.”
It’d still be subjective. There’s no way to objectively measure this.
100 people like something. One doesn’t. Are the 100 right? Is the one person wrong? How do you quantify this?
“Good lord you’re hopeless. There’s not a scientific theory in existence that hasn’t been undermined by something. Undermine != debunked. All you do is copy and paste huge swaths of text. Citing facts is fine, but it’s really boring to read long quotes that are only peripherally related to the point at hand.”
Right. I’m showing you things opposite from what you believe my friend. Always good to read every single side, no? It’s like the two times that Mashboy’s has cited that Grave paper against Rushton, you didn’t say anything to it. Like when Swank would cite people on Rushton’s R k theory you’d say “stop citing every anti-Rushton source you can find.” But that doesn’t say anything to what is written
I’m on mobile at the moment and don’t like to type too much. I will do so this afternoon.
“Please don’t read anything”
No thanks.
“since you can’t think critically about what you read”
Why makes you say this? You understand what quotes are for, correct?
Speaking of reading, have you read Gould or Darwin?
Why are you so averse to other views?
“Now I know why the aristocrats preferred their proles to stay illiterate. Ah, the good old days.”
I laughed. Not prole though.
“But even in plants, who followed a completely different path than us, those that are most evolved would tend to be judged most impressive.” *
If you were to say “more complex” I’d have no problem. But “more evolved” and “highly evolved” aren’t scientific terms. It’s for philosophy of biology. Specifically axiology. It’s not science.
But as things evolve, and specifically humans, they tend to get more complex.
There is a correlation at the very least between human evolution and complexity and sophistication.
I think that’s really what PP is getting at anyway.
“It’d still be subjective. There’s no way to objectively measure this.”
Absolutely right, for a long time people would unanimously have agreed that the sun revolves around planet earth based on their subjective perception.
Absolutely right, for a long time people would unanimously have agreed that the sun revolves around planet earth based on their subjective perception.
You’re confusing “objective” with “true”. There’s a very subtle difference between these two terms.
“Do you know what a split on an evolutionary tree even means?”
Do you know that branch lengths on phylogeny are irrelevant?
A split denotes a speciation event. However, a straightine doesn’t mean no change.
https://wiki.bio.purdue.edu/K12Evolution/index.php/4.What_is_the_common_misconceptions_of_Phylogenetic_Trees%3F
“Yes, so in theory Berkeley is right when they parrot the cliché about position on trees being meaningless. But is it likely? Hell NO!”
Did you take biology in college man? It’s not cliche my friend. It’s true. You can rotate the branches and the whats being conveyed in the phylogeny won’t change.
“In any direction”
Just as likely to go be simple than complex.
“If evolution wasn’t progressive we wouldn’t judge more evolved life forms to be more impressive than less evolved life forms.”
You may not have realized, but this is an argument. You have “if” and then “then” in your statement. You just needed your conclusion “therefore evolution is progressive.” i used to think philosophy was garbage but there is utility to knowing basic logic.
And your consequent is horrible and subjective. Horrible argument.
You’re basically saying “human subjectivity denotes what is impressive because we say that “more evolved” organisms are “more impressive” than “less evolved” organisms. Subjective.
“Evolution may appear to zig zag in no particular direction in the short run, but over billions of years of trial and error, life gets more and more impressive.”
Lol. Going to quote the paper “What is complexity? Is it increasing?” by Linewater, Davies and Ruse, 2013
[McShea and Brandon] say that complexity is “a function only of the amount of differentiation among parts within an individual”. Elsewhere they say ““complexity” just means number of parts types or degree of differentiation among parts”. They are very careful to specify that this has nothing to do with adaptation. Indeed they say “in our usage, even functionless, useless, part types contribute to complexity. Even maladaptive differentiation is pure complexity”. How could this complexity come about? It all seems to be a matter of randomness. With Gould, and I think with Spencer, they simply believe that over time more and more things will happen and pieces will be produced and thus complexity will emerge. It is the inevitability of the drunkard falling into the gutter.
Ie, as I’ve said before, the only way to go from the first bacterial organisms, the left all of minimum complexity—simplicity—is to go towards the right wall of complexity. Say whatever you want about Gould and hereditarianism, he was right on evolutionary theory. Life *seems* to get progressive, but in actuality, evolution isn’t about progress, it’s about local adaptation.
Saying one organism is more evolved than another denotes a teleological aspect to evolution, no matter if that is your intention or not.
“Do you know what a split on an evolutionary tree even means?”
Do you know that branch lengths on phylogeny are irrelevant?
A split denotes a speciation event. However, a straightine doesn’t mean no change.
A split simply means one population has divided into two or more. A straight line simply means one population has stayed one population. Now because major changes in environments tend to correlate with population splits, and major changes in environments cause evolutionary change, populations that are descended from more splits tend to have experienced more evolutionary change. Apparently you’re genetically incapable of understanding this very simple concept.
Straight line equals no change: Many students interpret that the species at the tip of the straight line is the ancestor of the others that branch off of the line.
In theory descendants from a straight line can undergo the most evolutionary change, and descendants from many splits can most resemble the common ancestor, or all of them can be equally changed, but ON AVERAGE that doesn’t happen, because splits themselves are correlated with environmental changes (populations split because a drought cuts a jungle in half so a single primate tribe must divide into two, or the population gets two big, so part of the population must migrate out).
I’M VERY CONCERNED THAT YOU DON’T HAVE THE GENETIC ABILITY TO GRASP THIS ABSTRACT IDEA.
“A split simply means one population has divided into two or more. A straight line simply means one population has stayed one population. Now because major changes in environments tend to correlate with population splits, and major changes in environments cause evolutionary change, populations that are descended from more splits tend to have experienced more evolutionary change. Apparently you’re genetically incapable of understanding this very simple concept.”
I just showed you that on the ‘straight line’ that speciation can take place.
Please read.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evotrees_interpretations_05
I’m afraid you’re letting your ego get in the way of a very basic concept.
I’m afraid you can’t grasp this concept.
“In theory descendants from a straight line can undergo the most evolutionary change”
Right. It depends what kind of phylogeny it is though. The length of the line shows if more evolutionary change occurred in that part of the tree. It doesn’t mean what you think it means though.
“but ON AVERAGE that doesn’t happen, because splits themselves are correlated with environmental changes (populations split because a drought cuts a jungle in half so a single primate tribe must divide into two, or the population gets two big, so part of the population must migrate out).”
Outgroups often appear as long, unbroken branches because their full diversity is rarely represented, not because they necessarily retain many ancestral characteristics. Even if a particular group actually is comprised of just a few lineages, it doesn’t indicate anything about the amount of evolutionary change that has occurred within that lineage.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evotrees_interpretations#d1
Evolutionary change may occur at any point along the branches in the tree.
“A split simply means one population has divided into two or more. A straight line simply means one population has stayed one population. Now because major changes in environments tend to correlate with population splits, and major changes in environments cause evolutionary change, populations that are descended from more splits tend to have experienced more evolutionary change. Apparently you’re genetically incapable of understanding this very simple concept.”
I just showed you that on the ‘straight line’ that speciation can take place.
Of course it can, but it’s MORE LIKELY to occur on a line with splits for reasons I explained.
“In theory descendants from a straight line can undergo the most evolutionary change”
Right. It depends what kind of phylogeny it is though. The length of the line shows if more evolutionary change occurred in that part of the tree. It doesn’t mean what you think it means though.
The length of the lines simply represents time. All an evolutionary tree tells you is which populations split and how long ago; you get that right?
“but ON AVERAGE that doesn’t happen, because splits themselves are correlated with environmental changes (populations split because a drought cuts a jungle in half so a single primate tribe must divide into two, or the population gets two big, so part of the population must migrate out).”
Outgroups often appear as long, unbroken branches because their full diversity is rarely represented, not because they necessarily retain many ancestral characteristics.
Well obviously if the tree is incomplete it will be misleading
Even if a particular group actually is comprised of just a few lineages, it doesn’t indicate anything about the amount of evolutionary change that has occurred within that lineage.
What they should have said was: “Even if a particular group actually is comprised of just a few lineages, it doesn’t NECCESSARILY indicate anything about the amount of evolutionary change that has occurred within that lineage”.
More splits among populations of the same taxa do indeed correlate with more evolution for reasons I explained above. Berkeley professors may not understand this since it’s largely my personal discovery.
Evolutionary change may occur at any point along the branches in the tree.
Of course it can. I’ve said so repeatedly. But it’s MORE LIKELY to occur in lines with the most splits for reasons you can’t seem to understand.
Click to access NAT_2005_435_429.PDF
“Of course it can, but it’s MORE LIKELY to occur on a line with splits for reasons I explained.”
First, the long unbroken branch is made relative to the size of the phylogeny.
A divergence does not necessarily denot when evolutionary change takes place. These changes can occur before, at or after the point where the node branches.
“The length of the lines simply represents time.”
Read from root to tip, not across tips.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evotrees_interpretations#c1
“The length of the lines simply represents time. All an evolutionary tree tells you is which populations split and how long ago; you get that right?”
I just showed you that the longer the line in some phylogeny, the more evolutionary change it underwent. But that’s ONLY when branch length is used to convey evolutionary change.
You understand that phylogenies can be used for a variety of different theories and hypotheses on relatedness and traits, right?
“Well obviously if the tree is incomplete it will be misleading”
It’s not about being misleading. Branch length is affected simply by including more phyla in the tree.
“What they should have said was: “Even if a particular group actually is comprised of just a few lineages, it doesn’t NECCESSARILY indicate anything about the amount of evolutionary change that has occurred within that lineage”.”
Phylogenies are used for different things.
“More splits among populations of the same taxa to correlate with more evolution for reasons I explained above. Berkeley professors may not understand this since it’s largely my personal discovery.”
bow
I just showed you’re wrong, but whatever. You’re right.
“Of course it can. I’ve said so repeatedly. But it’s MORE LIKELY to occur in lines with the most splits for reasons you can’t seem to understand.”
I do understand it. I’m constantly telling you the four ways that evolutionary change occurs, and I also told you that mutations occur faster when natural selection is weak or absent, so I don’t know why you’re asking me id I understand allopatry.
AFROSAPIENS is at least partially right about the African Immigrants’ selectivity.
In the U.S. they have an average IQ of 108.
If SSA has an average of 67, meaning that the average African immigrant would be at the intelligence of 1/319.
But the issue is that 5% of SSA students go to college.
Are immigrants really selected beyond college degrees?
If so, then how?
If we were to assume Education=IQ at a 1.00 correlation, we’d see the average SSA IQ is 108-25= 83.
If you use the 0.5 education IQ-Correlation it would be 95.5.
http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/iqtable.aspx
http://ent.arp.harvard.edu/AfricaHigherEducation/
No, I’m not the one who says African immigrants are hyper selected.
Actually, about 50% of those from West Africa have college degrees in the US, less in the UK.
But in 2013, tertiary enrollment rate is 14% in Ghana, 8% in the Ivory Coast, Nigeria has no statistics but might be at Indian levels around 20% since their GDP per capita is the same.
“In the U.S. they have an average IQ of 108.”
I’d like to see your source, not that I doubt the number, I just want to save the link, I think it’s going to be needed one day or another.
He can talk all he wants about “the magic Negro”………
but his boy wonder is ALSO propped up by the Jews.
a “magic White”?
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/218712/spencer-gottfried-alt-right
Alt-Rightist= Fucktard.
100% genetic
When will the HBD-sphere acknowledge this?
My ranking of all the people on this blog.
Marsha IQ 170 (scored 1590 on the 1994 SAT, plus off the scale on the WISC-R)
Philosopher IQ 143 (when he takes his meds, he’s right about everything and knows everything, but vastly oversimplifies when it comes to autism and schizophrenia)
Pumpkin IQ 140 (doesn’t know anything, yet is right about everything. Good at math and very rational and writes clearly)
Mugabe IQ 140 (knows everything, yet is wrong about everything, brilliantly funny, yet deeply delusional & irrational)
Gypsyman IQ 135 (knows a lot about philosophy and understands math)
Afrosapiens IQ 125 (knows a lot, but is wrong about everything and sucks at math)
Deal with it! IQ 125 (did well on the LSAT which suggests high IQ, but photo looks like a dumb bimbo, and anyone who thinks Mugabe is the smartest person they’ve ever met, can’t be too intelligent)
Swank IQ 125 (master of nitpicking)
JS IQ 120 (expresses himself well, and kind of worldly & successful, but often wrong & very narrow range of interests)
Santo IQ 115 (has lots of greats insights & super funny, but seems to have learning disabilities, in addition to language barrier)
RaceRealist IQ 66 (600 out of 2400 on the SAT, blames it on his bad school, but why was he there? Low IQ Southern Italian genes. Low brow interests (weight lifting). Does a lot of research but always misses the point.
“Afrosapiens IQ 125 (knows a lot, but is wrong about everything and sucks at math)”
Lol, I’m wrong about everything but you didn’t even take part in any of my discussions.
“RaceRealist IQ 66 (600 out of 2400 on the SAT, blames it on his bad school, but why was he there? Low IQ Southern Italian genes. Low brow interests (weight lifting). Does a lot of research but always misses the point.”
Damn, 50 point difference between the 2 lowest on your pole? That’s hilarious.
Why was I there? Black kids were bussed into the school I went to.
Lowbrow interests? Sure thing. I’m into bodybuilding, powerlifting, etc. So lowbrow. Even to train a professional and work on their diet is lowbrow.
Says the prostitute. Ooooooook.
>he’s right about everything and knows everything
Nah, he’s got some nice heuristics though. Generally speaking good heuristics mean you’re right more often.
PP’s heuristics are better, though.
Except on “progressive” evolution and Melanesians and Australoids being African.
“Santo IQ 115 (has lots of greats insights & super funny, but seems to have learning disabilities, in addition to language barrier)”
Santoculto is unemployed, has never been to college, is delusional 100% of the time.
Good you mention his learning disabilities, but it’s far from being the sole mental condition he suffers from. And we must not have the same definition of super funny or insightful. Reading santoculto is most often an awkward experience to me. Fortunately I very seldom read him.
Language barrier ? What language barrier, I’m French, many non-English speakers hold intelligible conversations all over the internet, but santoculto is absolutely unable to write something that minimally looks like English. I mean he could at least try to imitate the way others speak, he could check dictionaries instead of inventing words… But he won’t
Santoculto: IQ 55.
And we must not have the same definition of super funny or insightful. Reading santoculto is most often an awkward experience to me.
His humour flies over your head. Your mind just isn’t built for it.
“His humour flies over your head. Your mind just isn’t built for it.”
No, I understand it, I just find it pitiful.
”Santoculto is unemployed, has never been to college, is delusional 100% of the time.”
I have degree in Geography… but, ”been to college” this day, and maybe, always, was a waste of time for REAL smart people, not you chimp.
To be unemployed, like so many apefrican-descendent here i must be employed before… i’m too young and this situation is very common and it’s not evidence about my intelligence.
”Good you mention his learning disabilities, but it’s far from being the sole mental condition he suffers from”
My ”learning disability”**
I no have any… i know very well where i’m good, where i’m average and where i’m stupid.
Learning disability only exist for someone who don’t have self-awareness, your case, but the mediocre psychology never will detect your defective and primitive chimpmind, why*
because they are like you, inferior.
”Reading santoculto is most often an awkward experience to me”
It’s sound good, hurt the primitive mind of the chimpking here, hahahahahahahahaha
You must be remained in ”haiti”…
”Language barrier ? What language barrier, I’m French, many non-English speakers hold intelligible conversations all over the internet, but santoculto is absolutely unable to write something that minimally looks like English”
So LIAR this CHIMP, 😉
all the time trying to deceive someone, so niggerian!!
”I mean he could at least try to imitate the way others speak, he could check dictionaries instead of inventing words… But he won’t”
I don’t WANT, specially for TRASH as you CHIMP,
look to the mirror and look to the primitive human-kind.
Go find a job, try to be useful to someone for once in your life. I’m mean, with your degree in geography (lol) you could at least find a clerical job instead of wasting your talent at mama’s home. But you’re nothing but a useless faggot douchebag, and you know it.
Ape is mentally retarded
i thought some inferior specimen who are completely useless and waste of time and this garbage will be 4 billion of piece of shit, with honorable exception, not you, of course.
the only reason brazil is this TRASH is your NEGRO inferior here, pestilent half-humans…
i’m a ”white” supremacist**
huahuahuahuahuahuahuahuahua
most whites are idiotic too.
well degree in geography is much better than ”useful” social unscience.
I used the word HONORABLE
what is % of people with lower iq that use this word***
very few
i have used many words that tend to be exclusive for someone with greater vocabulary, here in this blog, even my grammatic is more than aberrant, it’s ridiculous…
this SUBTLETIES separate higher iq makkakos as you from real geniuses.
A lower iq person with right/correct/factual ideas is more useful, even for itself, than a crowd of academic intellectual-poser with delirium in their stupid heads.
”Go find a job, try to be useful to someone for once in your life. ”
HUAHUAHUAHUAHUAHUAHUAHUAHUAHUAHUAHUA
lessons from the ”wise” black
You talk exactly same thing my middle leftoid brother say for me,
both
completely inferior subhumans
my middle leftoid brother is extremely contradictory, he is so dumb, and yes, he fell in love with ”social INjustice” and by now he believe blacks are innocent and VILIFIED angels!!!
I’m useful for myself first, the most important, i’m useful for my parents helping them in the domestic tasks, by now, and i’m useful putting my ideas about wisdom, specially, in my blog.
I’m more useful than you because i’m not doing SHIT just like 99% of social ”scientists” or actively spreading nonsense in the most coward way possible.
”Go find a job, try to be useful to someone for once in your life”
Do you hear it BUGabby**
based on apesapiens ”wisdom”, you’re a loser…
Santo it’s not unwise to get a job. You might wake up one day and learn that the wisest thing in the world is to be “well adjusted”. Everyone needs external validation and some measure of real world success.
Deal with it!,
So you no have any idea what wisdom mean…
high functioning psychopaths often are very well-adjusted, they are wise**
absolutely not, even in my understanding, psychopathy and wisdom share many similarities, specially because psychological resilience and extreme realism.
”Everyone needs external validation and some measure of real world success.”
Only prole subhumans with ant worker personality think like that and they do that because they can’t accept the reality, so they internalize at subconscious and lazy level the fake/artificial reality of anthill they are living
they think entire world IS the anthill they are living in.
they are pussies, pet. and only real intelligence will can release the next generations of this type of inherited and natural mental slavery.
You are unwise. Are you saying that you wouldn’t be happier if you were popular, had a good job, and a love life? Impossible! The problem with people like you (and Mugabe to some extent) is that you are looking for depth in a puddle of water. Life is not that complicated.
Deal with it!
You just can’t understand, the real superior beings in this world are those who remain financial burdens to their parents until they are thirty. What’s needed is to exterminate all the Afrosapienses of this world and to replace them with some Santocultos, a few JSs and some Philosophers and everything’s gonna be much better.
”You are unwise.”
No.
”Are you saying that you wouldn’t be happier if you were popular, had a good job, and a love life? ”
No.
Ignorance is a bliss.
”Life is not that complicated.”
Exactly, for us life is very simple, at least for me, it’s not me who are complicating the life with religion ”or” ideology and idiotic/perverse laws in every social aspect.
I will be more direct
a real eugenics will wipe out the predominant type of human being.
BUT
seems, most of eugenic ones tend to be like that, lol!!
common, mediocre, discretly megalomaniacals…
I’m a extremely simple guy. not a simpleton, but nor a over-complex-atomized ones.
Most people are like rats walking to take their cheeses.
but
who say to the rat he need walk to take the cheese*
who created, organize and sustain this state of affairs*
Virtually speaking, the essential human tilt, and it’s not human-only defect, is the ”dualistic tilt”.
real well being and evolution live always in the ponderation BUT not stagnation.
Human societies are deeply fake, it’s completely wise understand/accept and start to live based on real wise statements.
Ape should go back to the jungle where IT is.
”He”s too stupid, yes, ”very cognitive clever”, but for what**
for believe and engage intensely in wrong informations**
I don’t want to say hard truths again ”you” can’t hear APE,
so
I am inviting you not to disturb this micro-debate.
”You” want a forest to play with to jump from branch to branch *
I hate repeat more than one time my solicitation.
go
ONLY- non apefreakans
Santo I don’t believe you. I think you’ve just fallen into a common trap for smart people which is to justify your failures.
WHAT WE KNOW:
Mugabe: 159 per SAT (regresses to either 142 or 182)
Pumpkinperson: 136 per WAIS (regresses to either 132 or 140)
*both of the above have provided proof of scores
Deal With it: 135 per LSAT (regresses to either 125 or 149)
JS: about 125 per SAT (regresses to either 118 or 135)
Santoculto, said he found 122 on PP’s biodemographic formula.
Marsha: 151
Mugabe: 142
Pumpkin: 140
JS: 135
Deal with it: 125
Santo (-14 for country differences): 108*
Race Realist (said he scored 108 on WAIS): 107
*would score higher on test in Native language/reared in a more developed country (?)
Santoculto doesn’t even have a high school diploma.
He’s unproductive and live at mamma’s home. And he’s in his late 20s.
he has said he has a degree in geography but can’t find work in that field……
I suppose although their is mining/oil in Brazil you would need geology or engineering training.
He definitely is a major self-hater (has Black and Sephardim ancestry), not sure what that says about his IQ.
Philosopher is VERY easy to troll, takes the bait EVERY TIME. Not sure what that says about his IQ. He also just endlessly repeats a shtick; he’s a bore.
“he has said he has a degree in geography but can’t find work in that field”
Does someone here find it plausible ? I mean, the guy doesn’t know about things as basic as demographic transition or terms of trade.
“He definitely is a major self-hater (has Black and Sephardim ancestry), not sure what that says about his IQ.”
Sure, is ego doesn’t seem huge. How could it honestly ? He can only hate himself, like most people around him probably do.
“Philosopher is VERY easy to troll, takes the bait EVERY TIME. Not sure what that says about his IQ. He also just endlessly repeats a shtick; he’s a bore.”
I’ll be honest, I only read his comments when they’re in response to mine or when they mention me. Maybe there is something about me that makes him downright stupid and delusional. Sometimes I read him in other conversations, he sounds stupid too, but like a proud know-it-all idiot. And many people here are impressed by philosopher, that indicates an even lower IQ in these guys.
Mugabe: 159 per SAT (regresses to either 142 or 182)
It’s called regression to the mean, not regression to and from the mean. Looks like race realist might have company in the retard room.
At least I got that going for me.
I’d rather be a retard that owns two businesses than a whore who lets random lowlifes do whatever to them.
APE,
you don’t know what you are talking about
well, a commonplace for you.
You’re deducting wrongly about me, just like a academic voodoo, you’re specialized.
”My” iq is, in my opinion, impossible to be above 120 because i’m very weak in spatial and mathematics.
In my mother tongue i think i will score around 120-130, and i believe my ”performance” will be around 100-105.
Because i have a very sophisticated cultural taste maybe this socio-cultural variables can have favored me.
”He definitely is a major self-hater (has Black and Sephardim ancestry), not sure what that says about his IQ.”
I no have any identification with black people because i see myself as a FULL human, and i no have even a mixed-race phenotype, just reasonably ambiguous.
So, i don’t hate myself.
I’m HONEST and SINCERE about the problems in the world, i know very well the specific dysfunctionalities of all groups i can belong, different than most people.
”I’ll be honest”
You ape*
i doubt, 😉
uhh… No Marsha.
Regression works both ways because
(182-100)x0.72= 159
a “proof” so to speak.
There is no dependency/Independence in effect here.
Try again.
[(182-100) x0.72]= 159
It’s just in the opposite direction.
“A wise man once said it is better to close your mouth and be thought a fool, then to open it and remove all doubt”.
Provide proof of your scores.
I am now skeptical.
g correlates to the SAT at 0.72,
then correlates to g at 0.72.
Does MM not understand this?
really?
I’m probably not coming back to this blog.
What a joke.
The fact it is believed MM could actually have an IQ of 171 does not speak well of this blog, much like with the philosopher as Afrosapiens said.
uhh… No Marsha.
Regression works both ways because
(182-100)x0.72= 159
a “proof” so to speak.
There is no dependency/Independence in effect here.
Try again.
Dude, the point of regression is to make a best guess of unknown data based on known data.
The known score you’re using for Bugger Bee is 159, so your best guess is 142 since people regress to the mean. The fact that 159 is also the best guess for someone with an IQ of 182 is irrelevant for guessing Bugger Bee’s real IQ.
Look I know it can be threatening when you encounter someone of my intellect for the first time in your life. I had a prof who was a Nobel Prize winner in science scream “GET THIS FUCKING CUNT OUT OF MY CLASS” because he couldn’t handle me exposing all the errors in his life’s work.
it’s time i buggered marsha.
like abner louima.
I don’t know if 125 is high or low for me but I’m smarter than the Philosturbator. He’s a retard. He’s a broken record and doesn’t say anything interesting. His main contribution is an oversimplification and misunderstanding of “autism” and “schizophrenia”. He’s a conspiracy theorist and believes in all kinds of retarded shit like Pizzagate.
If anyone would like to see autism in action, pizzagate is it. All based on circumstantial evidence. Did you hear abkht the loon who went to the pizzeria with a gun the other day? What morons. Muh vigilantes. Muh citizen detective work.
If you’re looking for something, you’re going to find. Always.
Deal with Dilapidated Bipolar Face
You write like a child. You have typical low IQ passionate SJW points of view on the great -isms! that unpopular girls have. You adopted SJW beliefs to a greater precocity because you can’t compete on looks with others.
Unlike many of the others, I know you are lying about your LSAT scores.
Your physiognomy is that of a manipulative grifter. You can’t hide it from me. Mugabe who came closest when he was probing you on the LSAT and your responses gave you away. But looking at your comments, your verbal IQ is much lower than 125 in any case. Put another way, I wouldn’t want you as my lawyer and neither one anyone else on this thread push come to shove.
Did your mom never teach you any manners on how to talk other people? You’re an evil retard, period. Fuck off.
”Santo IQ 115 (has lots of greats insights & super funny, but seems to have learning disabilities, in addition to language barrier)”
Oh thank you very much your kind words!!! =)
115 is my higher estimative, i think ”my” performance IQ will be 110 or less.
Yes, i think JS is very polite, and
i think RR is very educated too, i never will be, lol
i look like more the dramatic emotional southern italian stereotype than him, lol
I already give many name-calling for him, well, because he is extremely irritating with their gigantic stubborness but… he never threat me in the same way.
I don’t think he have a such lower IQ, you’re being sarcastic, i think he have a avg academic IQ, around 115.
BUGabby is very smart,
my older brother (RR call he is very smart only because he said imoral things, lol) is also very smart, degree in physics, read a lot, know many things,
but
psychologically speaking he is complete imbecile and this make all the differences.
there is a enormous fetish about ”intelligence”, but character, creativity (some people call ”real intelligence”, those who invent or discover things to the ”smart” ones learn) and wisdom are essential.
We have psychological aspect of our intelligence.
Marsha i no have learning disability, i’m not the prefferencial profile to the job,
symetric, higher and with emotional ”stability”, read, stable conformity to the authorities.
My math skills is lower but not extremely bad at all, my spatial skills, yes, very lower, but it don’t hurt me because I KNOW who i’m.
”my older brother (RR call he is very smart only because he said imoral things, lol)”
correcting
(RR said he is very smart)
WHAT WE KNOW:
Mugabe: 159 per SAT (regresses to either 142 or 182)
Pumpkinperson: 136 per WAIS (regresses to either 132 or 140)
*both of the above have provided proof of scores
Deal With it: 135 per LSAT (regresses to either 125 or 149)
JS: about 125 per SAT (regresses to either 118 or 135)
Santoculto, said he found 122 on PP’s biodemographic formula.
I realize that I haven’t shown any signs of intelligence but it’s impossible that I’m dumber than JS. No offense. My cognitive equal is Lion of the blogosphere but I act like a dumb bimbo.
“it’s impossible that I’m dumber than JS”
Yes, don’t worry only santoculto is dumber than JS, not by much though.
because i said truth for this monkey he is extremely anger with me, it’s a good sign, i love make stupid feel bad about chimpself.
Or
you’re very idiotic
or
you’re very emotional and no have a PALE idea you are talking about
or
both
i vote the third option
You can deceive most people here with your pseudo-good academic manner, not me ape!
See, I’m 24yo, I’m a lawyer,I own my home in a suburb, I drive a Range Rover, I’m engaged to the most wonderful woman in the world and plan to get married and have my first child soon. What are you doing meanwhile ? Writing hateful nonsense at mama’s home while nearly turning 30. And feel lucky I even bother to mind you.
See, I’m 24yo, I’m a lawyer,I own my home in a suburb, I drive a Range Rover,
It’s not hard to have a home in the suburbs and drive a Range Rover when you were adopted into the French elite.
I’m engaged to the most wonderful woman in the world and plan to get married and have my first child soon.
I noticed you didn’t say wonderful black woman.
Come on, that’s mean.
Isaac Newton if he were compared with you would be a ”loser”**
you’re a prole, NEGRO ESTÚPIDO! 😉
Truth is mean I agree.
Negroid estúpido write shit about me = acceptable
i write truth about him = hate comments
common color of shit!!
back to the toilet called ”apefreakkka”
other lesson for the negro ingrato here
Someone who is good to do verbal analogies, metaphor, create hypothesis and theories, have higher abstract verbal intelligence.
a tick
is not you.
“Negroid estúpido write shit about me = acceptable
i write truth about him = hate comments”
Boooooh it’s so unfair !
She actually said I was mean for showing you how you’re such a nobody.
Why is a rich lawyer having comment ego-wrestling matches with strangers?
Surely you have a social life that’s broad enough to make you happy without resorting to drinking the dregs of your least favourite HBD bottle.
I currently have strep throat, that’s the only reason why I’m here a that moment.
Stress isn’t good for recovery, neither is irritation.
The Gypsy medicine I recommend is giving this business a rest.
Even if HBD is correct, you’re at least decently intelligent, successful and so on, why do you care?
If you were so motivated, I’m sure that you could work in politics to help create programs to ensure that the most gifted black teens are well-developed.
The way I see it there’s very little reason to get upset.
”Boooooh it’s so unfair !
She actually said I was mean for showing you how you’re such a nobody.”
Is unfair where chimp*
Would be unfair if i accept this state of affairs…
poor MONKEY, hihihihihihihihihihihi
look to the mirror, look*
what you see*
tip
look to the mirror during the day, because at night, the mirror will show your dark soul.
Gypsyman is other hopeless organic robot.
“Stress isn’t good for recovery, neither is irritation.”
Do I sound irritated ? I don’t think I am.
“If you were so motivated, I’m sure that you could work in politics to help create programs to ensure that the most gifted black teens are well-developed.”
I’m a Rotary Club member, I have volunteered in Africa and Haiti multiple times, I don’t think my country (France) has a black problem though, so I won’t do anything in this direction.
“The way I see it there’s very little reason to get upset.”
I’m basically just killing time.
”virtue” signaling….
oops.
”He” (or It) was ”help” (their) people in Apefreaka and in ”Haiti”… or just pose as ”good samaritan”…
Would be interesting to see what apesapiens ”think” about anti-semitic like RR…
😉
>Gypsyman
How very rude Jewish Santa.
Does Santa Clausewitz take presents away from kids?
Smoke in the face of these retarded kids
”how rude”
bluhr
Where is Hitler when we need him *
Hitler did a negro-job with joos… so smeert…
Sherman, where is you**
”Well, he need to cut this ridiculous beard”
Gypsyman, do you work with… hihihihi… ‘gifted’ kids**
Interesting how this days we have so many ”gifted” kids and teens in any american or canadian or haitian city near to you…
>Gypsyman, do you work with… hihihihi… ‘gifted’ kids**
Is this an oblique request for me to be your caseworker?
Are you “Gifted” and “Special” too?
“Are you “Gifted” and “Special” too?”
Special needs for sure!
Please,
gifted and special
”Special needs for sure!”
Yes i need half-human slave, do you are enable APE*
😉
Newton also Also needed special needs, and look what he did *
Now,
”you” …
It should have been aborted.
Where’s Parenthood or Maggie Sanger when we need them …
“I noticed you didn’t say wonderful black woman.”
She’s the most wonderful of every races of women.
“It’s not hard to have a home in the suburbs and drive a Range Rover when you were adopted into the French elite.”
I’m not implying I have special merit about this, I’m just making santoculto realize that he would kill to live the life I live and that whatever he says can’t bring me down.
Only PROLES/SUBHUMANS think materialism is the excellence of the life
again
some stupid french couple should let you die in Haiti…
supposedly
the macaco-de souche here is
capitalistic***
What do you think BUGabby*
Real superior people don’t need a car, a ‘beautiful’ woman or a bigger home to BUY their self-esteem…
Some people only need from itself to have pride.
Highest level of arrogance is a sign of very low self-esteem, a defensive reaction.
“Real superior people don’t need a car, a ‘beautiful’ woman or a bigger home to BUY their self-esteem…”
Lol, many other things boost my self esteem you know. In case you haven’t noticed, the thing I make the most fun about is that you don’t have a job.
I truly despise idleness. There are plenty things to do in this world, even in times of little job opportunities, you can volunteer, try setting up your business, deal some drugs or whatever. But do something of your lame ass.
See, I never had to work to make a living, I’ve been in the charities ever since I was 8yo, I did some odd jobs when I was a teen just to be confronted to the average person’s realities, I even did some modeling to kill time. There are lots of things to do in this world. Maybe, some circumstances can prevent you from doing something I can respect that, only if you remain humble toward others.
Damn Afrosapiens. You really touched a nerve with Santoculto.
“Damn Afrosapiens. You really touched a nerve with Santoculto.”
Not sure I understand what it means. I it means Santoculto drove me out of my mind, no it’s not the case. I’m responding because I’m bored, I have strep throat, I’m confined to the guest quarters of my house so I’m basically alone with screens all day, I sleep very little and I can barely talk. So I may seem to take it very seriously. But as soon as I recover you’ll probably won’t hear from me for a while.
Ape,
you are the least person in this planet who can teach how to be humble with someone.
three possibilities
cynical
retarded
or both
i choice the third.
i no have two faces as you.
”Doing something”
again again and again
you don’t know who i’m, you no have a squalid idea, so
shut up
I thought it’s the time you come back to your fake life.
Only idiotic people who really can believe in the academic voodoo, Shizala, your friend, Chinedu and you are trying to push into the hbd ”community”.
”Lol, many other things boost my self esteem you know.”
i think this ape don’t understand my advanced thought here.
First, you no have a real self esteem because you don’t know where you are defective, to do the final interpersonal account, the final self-balance, you’re megalomaniacal as most people here, if you some day really develop a self-awareness, what FULL-humans tend to have, your superficial PROLE self-esteem will be easily destroyed,
Second, i will repeat because i’m too kind with INFERIOR, i should not be, but… i have higher self-esteeem just and firstly because myself, i don’t need other things in my life to be well with myself. This ape all the time talk a lot about their ”succesful’ life, thanks to the retarded adoptive ”family”. A real self-esteem don’t need this PROLE compensations…
”In case you haven’t noticed, the thing I make the most fun about is that you don’t have a job.”
And do you think i’m bad for it***
foooool
”don’t know who IT is ”talking” ”
😉
What make me laugh a lot is that
you think you’re a full human but when you look to the mirror every day of your life you realize how monkey-looking you’re… pobrecito…
and well, many of my afro-descendent brazilians fellows no have job too…
sad
”There are lots of things to do in this world”
exactly
firstly
you need sterilize yourself
and kill yourself
what do you think APE*
highly ”smart” and USELESS monkey…
Ape now just repeat the same stuff… noise in your simpleton brain.
RerRor and APE are good online friends isn’t**
but not
RR is a white supremacist, he HATE donkeys as you APE…
RR if he can, he will advocate for en masse sterilization of this piece of shit call ”apefreecans”..
if I were you, I would not be a RR ”friend”.
Just a tiny line unite this two individuals, so sorry, one individual and a half, very tiny…
“RR is a white supremacist”
Hahaha. Yes. Me. White supremacist. I argue that evolution isn’t progress, and there is no more evolved race or organism. Must make me a white supremacist.
“he HATE”
I hate people who harm peace-loving people. Race be damned.
“RR if he can, he will advocate for en masse sterilization of this piece of shit call ”apefreecans””
Where have I said this?
I don’t believe there is a “Supreme race”. That’s retarded.
If anyone is interested, there is a good episode of Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman on whether or not there is a superior race.
https://youtu.be/kKbGvpgBwe8
I’m specifically interested in Afrosapiens’ and PP’s thoughts on this. Give it a watch if you have time.
”Hahaha. Yes. Me. White supremacist. I argue that evolution isn’t progress, and there is no more evolved race or organism. Must make me a white supremacist.”
AND*
You’re a RACE REALIST…
You’re a engaged in your Ethnic Genetic Interests
You think blacks are less intelligent, on avg, than whites, if not, you no had this pictures in your blog, 😉
complete waste of time
you’re a cuck RR***
both PATHETIC crowns
“You’re a RACE REALIST…”
How does this make me a white supremacist? You see me bash white nationalism here. So white supremacist.
“You’re a engaged in your Ethnic Genetic Interests”
No I’m not. Show me that Southern Italians score lower than Northern Italians on real IQ tests, and not PISA exams.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236631160_Problems_in_deriving_Italian_regional_differences_in_intelligence_from_2009_PISA_data
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223712957_The_mean_Southern_Italian_children_IQ_is_not_particularly_low_A_reply_to_R_Lynn_2010
Click to access D_Amico__Cardaci__Di_Nuovo___Naglieri_2012.pdf
PP what are your thoughts on Lynn’s Italian “IQ” data? Can you defend that trash?
Well Afrosemantics, I’m going to make a coffee and I’ll sit down to crawler mode. I’m going to do one last turn on this inane argument that you secretly know I’m correct about; following such we can move onto more productive things in life like toenail clipping, online banking and gas heater cylinder replacement.
I told you: bring it on, I can’t wait.
Another internet fight.
One more for the Philostomy bag.
(1) “How could I prove something that is not true, they found environmental differences in the background of the children, differences that were found to influence the IQ gains and the retention of these gains.
In the Minnesota study, the proportion of IQ variance associated with pre-adoption variables declined from .32 to .13 between ages 7 and 17. WIKI
Notice the assumption though that Afro makes without being checked – all the black kids had uniformly bad environments pre adoption. In fact, the study also showed blacks scored the same with white parents than their original blacks in general when adoption happened within the same county.
So in essence you’re arguing black parenting sucks…which Rushton has wrote volumes on.
(2) http://frihetspartiet.net/dokumenter/minnesota-transracial-adoption-study.pdf
Look at p7.
You say the parents were not uniform enough to be a control variable, but there is less than an SD in the male and female parents IQ range. Also see table 3 for more pecuniary factors low (note the 3 factors with p black only post adoption. We could be here all day trying to figure out why the decline was stronger though in mixies. Perhaps for my reason above. I don’t know.
Finally note Table 3…biological mothers race is the strongest individual variable for T1 and T2 IQs, and has the added benefit of being p<0.001 (very strong), but the r is not quite robust, even for social science. Still useful result here.
(3) Black Europeans do much better than black Americans in all white environments, and the adoptive kids apparently did quite well too, but maybe not as well as if 1976 America didn’t have the racist culture that Europe never had since the 20th century.
Yes but still less than whites even with the greater welfare state.
I am open to a discussion on Pakis/Bangladeshis because they're IQ is slightily higher than blacks. But the overall HBD heuristics remain stet with welfare state.
(4) Fine 2015 figures, how about 1976 ?
You are assuming whites were more 'rac-ist' in 1976…but you could argue the average prole white had a higher IQ and more class back then too. Fair point overall. I have no figures. But today its obvious being near whites boosts black performance, yet we see no significant closure of the gap from the late 70s.
(5) Come on, why would I mention things I know nothing about ?
I have no idea either. Do tell.
(6) First of all, in biology, the r/K theory postulates that larger body size is a K trait…IQ not an R/K trait
Well, I'm telling you it is. If Rushton didn't explicitly say IQ was not K selected, I'm telling you it is. He did say large body size is R selected for physical aggression and survival. Big Momma isn't a comedy skit. Its a very real phenomenon.
(7) Plus 20% Euro genes. And what you say is assuming that Africans have an IQ of 70, an estimate that no serious person has been able to replicate.
Well the euro genes I cannot say one way or another would make height increase or decrease. Neither can you.
But the IQ 70 is based on Lynn's data of multiple independent studies in the region. You don't like my crackerjack deductive approach but just talk to an African. Better yet go on holiday or read about African history. Its a lot less impressive than Middle Eastern, Asian and Meso-American history.
(8) “never wondering why Hispanics and East Asian food is not much better at that income level.”
Does this sentence even make sense ?
Yes it does. Nutrition for Asians and Hispanics at low income levels is not much different to blacks.
(9) My obesity IQ gap theory is complicated because you have a lot of noise there, like white admixture in blacks as you point out.
But I explicitly said that Sort 3 leaves out females because height is not selected for in females. The zygote throws protein in blacks at muscularity and strength to survive in Kinshasa, hence the improved fat burning ability you acknowledge.
The fat gaining ability is good for whites living in colder climes.
(10) You gave no explanation whatsoever, just lame speculations that I quite easily debunked. White South Africans have experienced just as much brain drain as did other developing countries. And for your information, it’s Madiba, not Madeba.
Yes white brain drain. The people I went to school with.
(11) The rest of your rebuttal seems to be more semantics about defining 'mixed race' and brushing aside the genome decoding by saying 'well in my opinion as a lawyer, a geneticist should have cracked it by now'.
You know when I 'speculate', there's a lot of thought that goes into my 'speculations' that I might skip over. I'm not trying to write a textbook everytime I comment, like now.
In the end I go back to my original observation. If Afrosapiens is setting up a tech firm and hedge fund, he ain't go to be looking at the University of Kinshasa for hires. I can tell you that.
>but you could argue the average prole white had a higher IQ and more class back then too.
God there are figures somewhere I read for this comparing the SAT’s of whites and blacks at various income levels that show whites of low income score similarly to blacks of high income.
I’m sure they could be found if you wanted to go out of your way to look for them.
I think that looking for black kids whose parents pre-adoption created good conditions for them would create a kind of selection effect anyway. You’d end up with blacks who are smarter than the average blacks such that they can foster a strong environment in the home and yet gave their children up for adoption, implying that the black kid has high IQ genes to begin with not representative of the average.
The only way to properly test this would be to subsidize and monitor a representitive sample of blacks so that they can raise their kids with equivalently good conditions. That kind of study would be prohibitively small and expensive and will probably never happen.
The best proxy are figures like SAT scores at income levels. You can probably suppose an alternative explanation but the simplest explanation for poor whites scoring as well as rich blacks despite their poverty implying poor nutrition and so on is higher genetic IQ. It also shows that the US may not be as fair to highly intelligent poor white people relative to blacks.
Yes that’s an interesting approach I hadn’t thought of.
There is no need of such costly experiments: Poor whites have similar IQs as poor blacks.
Remember, 16% of whites have IQs below the black mean, 10% of whites are poor, which possibly get those poor whites’ IQ close to that of the 27% of blacks who are poor. All of you guys make speculations like there is no overlap.
>which possibly get those poor whites’ IQ close to that
Well, evidently even though there is almost certainly overlap it’s not significant enough produce the results you’d like to see. As above we can see that poor whites score very nearly as well as rich blacks.
The empirical data is there, we don’t need speculate.
“As above we can see that poor whites score very nearly as well as rich blacks.”
same income doesn’t mean same wealth, same neighborhood, same general environment, same attitude to the test.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/08/12/black-poverty-differs-from-white-poverty/?utm_term=.01a68dd90ea1
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/24/poor-whites-live-in-richer-neighborhoods-than-middle-class-blacks-and-latinos/?utm_term=.8ecbba9c00a0
https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2015/06/housing-segregation-table.png&w=1484
>same income doesn’t mean same wealth, same neighborhood
Yeah but you’d expect that enough of these wealthy blacks live in good enough conditions such that their scores would be significantly better than poorer whites as an average despite a portion of them living in mitigating circumstances, you’d also expect that their affluence allows them to foster a home environment that allows for enough personal development to again score better than poorer whites.
I don’t necessarily expect them to score as well as their rich white peers, but scoring very similarly to whites that live in bad conditions is a definite red flag.
You’re making a number of very difficult to justify assertions that run contrary to Occam’s razor.
Look, black households earning $100,000 live in neighborhoods where the median income is $54,000. White households making $20,000 live in neighborhoods where the median income is $46,000
“you’d also expect that their affluence allows them to foster a home environment that allows for enough personal development to again score better than poorer whites.”
Home environment is not the only factor, peer pressure, neighborhood school quality matter too.
Let’s go to the UK, why do Africans outperform whites no matter the level of neighborhood deprivation ?
>Look, black households earning $100,000 live in neighborhoods where the median income is $54,000.
So you’d still expect them to perform closer to white families earning between $50-60,000 than white families earning less than $20,000.
But as you’v’e said, that’s mediated by peer pressure, but I think it’s entirely reasonable to assume that peer pressure in an area earning a median income of $54,000 is less significant than in an extremely poor area and so we’d still expect to see a performance that was much further from poor white families.
The problem isn’t simply that students rich black families underperform, that can be accounted for in the ways you describe, it’s that they underperform so significantly.
>Let’s go to the UK, why do Africans outperform whites no matter the level of neighborhood deprivation ?
There’s less useful data about UK schooling explaining this phenomena, but GCSE results correlate much less strongly with IQ than the SAT does so it’s not as useful as a proxy.
The numbers I brought in show that blacks earning $100,000 have SAT scores of 922 and live in neighborhoods of approximately the same quality as those where whites make $20,000 and have scores of 978. How is this difference enormous ?
>The numbers I brought in show that blacks earning $100,000 have SAT scores of 922 and live in neighborhoods of approximately the same quality as those where whites make $20,000 and have scores of 978.
That’s a pretty wide difference, I think you’d struggle to account for that purely in terms of culture.
“That’s a pretty wide difference, I think you’d struggle to account for that purely in terms of culture.”
You can’t explain in terms of IQ either since the blacks who make $100,000 obviously have higher IQs than the whites who make $20,000, if the IQ-income correlation means something.
>if the IQ-income correlation means something
It’s probable that it’s mediated by genetics.
“It’s probable that it’s mediated by genetics.”
Are you implying that blacks get higher incomes with lower IQs relative to whites ?
You can speculate about this as much as you want but here are two established facts.
-Black Americans who earn $100,000 live in comparable environments to whites earning 5 times less.
-Black Americans have more negative attitudes toward education and other mainstream values than whites of the same background.
>Are you implying that blacks get higher incomes with lower IQs relative to whites ?
There’s certainly that possibility when you consider factors like affirmative action.
It also may be the case that relative to their IQ, they’re well-suited for business (Risk-taking).
It’s a pretty strange result, one would think that blacks and whites of high incomes would both be similar in intelligence despite whatever averages given the selection effect the requirements of getting such a high income would create.
“one would think that blacks and whites of high incomes would both be similar in intelligence”
One would also naively think that blacks and whites of high incomes would both be similar in neighborhood characteristics.
“There’s certainly that possibility when you consider factors like affirmative action.
It also may be the case that relative to their IQ, they’re well-suited for business ”
Lol, there are people who argue that affirmative action is harmful to blacks, leading them to fail in colleges for which they are severely unprepared.
It can be anything you want to avoid the most obvious reality: incomes don’t equalize environments, culture creates further discrepancy.
A discrepancy which causes even the richest of blacks to perform similarly to the poorest whites?
Yes they live in similar neighbourhoods, but I strongly doubt it raises white results so highly and depresses black results so strongly.
You’d need a hell of a lot of research to justify that the effects you’re describing are as strong as they are and account for as much of the extremely large difference as they do.
Ultimately I think your assumptions run against Occam’s razor.
Because what you’re saying is that living in a poorer environment doesn’t just depress black results such that they are closer to their white economic milieu, it depresses them such that they are like the poorest.
You explain this with additional socio-cultural factors, but I doubt they are strong enough to produce the results you describe.
“A discrepancy which causes even the richest of blacks to perform similarly to the poorest whites?”
Yes, and I can even make some typical HBDer assumptions like those poor whites are hyper-motivated students that are not representative of their milieu. Whereas college application likely is universal among rich blacks.
“You explain this with additional socio-cultural factors, but I doubt they are strong enough to produce the results you describe.”
And you explain that with genetic factors for which no direct evidence exists.
>Yes, and I can even make some typical HBDer assumptions like those poor whites are hyper-motivated students
Not necessarily a very strong assumption. Some of them will be, but I doubt enough will be to be representative.
>And you explain that with genetic factors for which no direct evidence exists.
Well, it would explain almost the entire difference, explain much of the failures of Africa to develop sophisticated civilizations to the extent others did.
It seems to me to be a more robust, explanatorily powerful model and until such a time as direct evidence is presented that contradicts it on a genetic level I think it’s worth accepting heuristically rather than a more complex model that involves more assumptions it’s increasingly hard to justfy holding.
“explain much of the failures of Africa to develop sophisticated civilizations to the extent others did.”
Lol, Africa has been (and is still) a severely under-populated tropical disease-ridden place. What would you expect it to be ? See similar areas like pre-colonial Brazil or Australia, they’ve made even less advancements.
And if climate and disease don’t matter, why Siberia or Canada had no civilizations ?
And what about the indigenous people of the US have done all that time on the land that would become the world’s first superpower ?
Yes, let’s keep on thinking the sun revolves around earth.
>Lol, Africa has been (and is still) a severely under-populated tropical disease-ridden place.
That ain’t a strong defense. Europe is equally if not more disease ridden and still advanced.
Personally I believe the demands of Europe caused a genetic bottleneck that resulted in the mutations that caused higher average European IQ.
>Yes, let’s keep on thinking the sun revolves around earth.
C’mon, you know that this isn’t analogous. Hyperbole isn’t getting you anywhere.
“That ain’t a strong defense. Europe is equally if not more disease ridden and still advanced.”
You’re not serious, Europe doesn’t have endemic malaria, yellow fever, sleeping sickness and so on. Europe has always had a much higher population density than Africa, then it took worldwide lead with the printing press that allowed to disseminate knowledge and ideas to an unprecedented extent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population_estimates#By_world_region
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printing_press#The_Printing_Revolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_disease
“C’mon, you know that this isn’t analogous. Hyperbole isn’t getting you anywhere.”
This is absolutely appropriate.
>You’re not serious, Europe doesn’t have endemic malaria, yellow fever, sleeping sickness and so on.
Sure as hell had three seperate plagues, though. Our major epidemic have since been solved but were nevertheless present historically.
>This is absolutely appropriate.
Nah, you’re just acting a little Blanche Dubois. Taking it too far.
“Sure as hell had three seperate plagues, though. Our major epidemic have since been solved but were nevertheless present historically.”
Africa has had bubonic plague too. European disease were never exclusive to Europe and didn’t prevent population growth contrary to Africa and most other tropical regions.
“Nah, you’re just acting a little Blanche Dubois. Taking it too far.”
You just said that we should stick to the simplest explanations of the things we see, so let’s say dolphins are fish, bats are birds and Galileo was wrong.
>European disease were never exclusive to Europe and didn’t prevent population growth contrary to Africa and most other tropical regions.
It did kill off 1/3 of the population. I’ve heard some people argue that this contributed to a bottleneck wherein the people most able to shield themselves from the condition (The rich and intelligent) did and those that were unable to died contributing to higher average intelligence in Europe.
>You just said that we should stick to the simplest explanations of the things we see, so let’s say dolphins are fish, bats are birds and Galileo was wrong.
Nah, you’re now throwing a tizzy. I’ll accept strong empirical evidence that the genes for Africans and Europeans don’t differ but so far you’ve offered me a complex and hard to justify alternative heuristic to a simple and easy to justify heuristic.
Don’t get dramatic.
Don’t differ in terms of their effect on intellectual ability*
“It did kill off 1/3 of the population. I’ve heard some people argue that this contributed to a bottleneck wherein the people most able to shield themselves from the condition (The rich and intelligent) did and those that were unable to died contributing to higher average intelligence in Europe.”
That’s impossible because medical knowledge was insufficient to shield anyone from the disease.
By the way: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs267/en/
“easy to justify heuristic.”
If it’s so easy, why can’t anyone show the genes ?
There is nothing complex in what I say.
Small population (for whatever reason) = fewer arms and fewer brains = less development.
That’s why deserts are less civilized than megalopolises or other overcrowded regions.
>That’s impossible because medical knowledge was insufficient to shield anyone from the disease.
Yes, but the rich could move further away from epicentres of the disease and already occupied country estates owning land far from urban centres.
>If it’s so easy, why can’t anyone show the genes ?
Because it’s an extremely sophisticated area of study empirically, but heursitically it easily explains all of the phenomena we see right now and needs little other explanation.
>Small population (for whatever reason) = fewer arms and fewer brains = less development.
And potentially fewer demands in your environment to adapt intellectually and pass on those genes to your children.
“Yes, but the rich could move further away from epicentres of the disease and already occupied country estates owning land far from urban centres.”
No, the rich had no way to escape contamination, no area was spared, the rich could never isolate themselves from the poor, and from the rats that carried the plague.
Moreover wealth was more a matter of strength and nepotism than intellectual ability in the past.
“Because it’s an extremely sophisticated area of study empirically, but heursitically it easily explains all of the phenomena we see right now and needs little other explanation.”
Heuristics is a fuel for superstition, pseudoscience and syllogistic fallacy, science is built on empiricism.
“And potentially fewer demands in your environment to adapt intellectually and pass on those genes to your children.”
Humans occupy their environments up to their maximum carrying capacity, the Malthusian limit. Places that have lower density are simply less hospitable and pose just as many challenges to the people who live there.
If you try to be honest one second, you can’t ignore that places that developed advanced civilizations tended to have
-temperate climates
-abundant water resources
-low disease load
-fertile soils
-terrain that favors human concentration (valleys, peninsulas, narrow islands, mountainous plateaus…)
-easy access to other civilizations
Now if there is something that makes things “heuristically more evident”, there’s nothing I can do for you.
>No, the rich had no way to escape contamination, no area was spared
It’s reasonable to assume that plague outbreaks acted like a field such that places further away from epicentres were significantly less plague-ridden than areas closer lowering risk of mortality.
>Heuristics is a fuel for superstition
Not necessarily. It’s a fuel for good assumptions subject to change when refuted by definitive evidence.
>Places that have lower density are simply less hospitable and pose just as many challenges to the people who live there.
It may have been the kinds of challenges. When it comes to evolution what matters about the enviroment isn’t just quantative, but qualitative.
>-temperate climates
-abundant water resources
-low disease load
-fertile soils
-terrain that favors human concentration (valleys, peninsulas, narrow islands, mountainous plateaus…)
-easy access to other civilizations
I’m happy to accept that Europe had these conditions, but I also believe that it’s likely that such conditions meant that the people who could best exploit them for their benefit (Largely strong problem solvers) were more likely to pass on their genes.
“areas closer lowering risk of mortality.”
But people didn’t know the disease was transmitted by rats, therefore, they didn’t know what to exactly escape.
“When it comes to evolution what matters about the enviroment isn’t just quantative, but qualitative.”
Habitability is a qualitative consideration, not a quantitative one
“but I also believe that it’s likely that such conditions meant that the people who could best exploit them for their benefit (Largely strong problem solvers) were more likely to pass on their genes.”
No, these conditions just made it easier for everyone to survive.
>But people didn’t know the disease was transmitted by rats, therefore, they didn’t know what to exactly escape.
Well firstly, many of the richest and brightest and best educated lived in country estates rather than the more heavily impacted urban centres, and secondly when the plague hits town you don’t ask around and experiment to find out what exactly is transmitting it, you MOVE. When the plague hit Cambridge Isaac Newton MOVED. You ASSUME this area is dangerous and that a less populated area probably has much less greater risk.
>Habitability is a qualitative consideration
It’s about the kinds of qualities, not just that they are qualities that affect mortality rates. When you have an area of land that provides the seeds for a more intellectual society the qualities that are best adapted to that will be more likely to adapt (Turn the situation to their advantage) survive and breed.
>No, these conditions just made it easier for everyone to survive.
But much, much easier for a specific kind of person to propogate most effectively.
I’d also like to return to an earlier topic and point out that there is also stigma against education amongst poor whites and contempt for schooling and the apparent stuck-up self-superior intellectuals, anecdotally Bill Hicks did a few comedy routines on the anti-intellectualism of the places that he visited in the South and it could be that his experience is representative. This will affect poor white performance on the SAT to an as-yet undefined extent that could be as extensive as the black socio-cultural inhibitors of performance.
The problem with socio-cultural factors like the ones you describe is that they’re very difficult to account for, may or may not factor into averages significantly, and similar conditions are often shared by different communities. Given that this is the case I think at least some genetic explanation is warranted, and again valid heuristically.
“Well firstly, many of the richest and brightest and best educated lived in country estates rather than the more heavily impacted urban centres”
That applies only to the highest rank of the nobility something like the top 0,0001%. Plus this has limited implications for IQ since pre-modern societies were not knowledge-based societies. Feudalism was basically military Junta. The traders, bourgeois, the Jews, doctors etc. were in the cities and had little opportunity to move out.
“You ASSUME this area is dangerous and that a less populated area probably has much less greater risk.”
Which wasn’t necessarily the case.
“When you have an area of land that provides the seeds for a more intellectual society the qualities that are best adapted to that will be more likely to adapt (Turn the situation to their advantage) survive and breed.”
And can you tell me which areas of land provide the seeds for a more intellectual society ? Is it yet something that is empirically to hard to test but that good heuristics make simple to grasp ?
“But much, much easier for a specific kind of person to propogate most effectively.”
OK, a more livable environment makes it much easier for the brightest to propagate and a tougher environment makes it easier for the dullest to propagate. Empiricism or heuristics ?
“against education amongst poor whites and contempt for schooling and the apparent stuck-up self-superior intellectuals,”
You’re probably true, except that for blacks, there is race distanciation in addition to class distanciation. Since social class doesn’t equal household income and blacks making $100k likely find themselves in a comparable milieu as whites making $20k, your argument is weak. What share of poor whites apply for college ? What share of rich blacks apply for college ? There are self-selection effects at play here.
“The problem with socio-cultural factors like the ones you describe is that they’re very difficult to account for,”
No, they are not difficult to account for, maybe on internet fights because you can’t translate them into numbers. But in the reality of field work, they are what the professionals of education have to manage on a daily basis, it’s much more relevant to them than IQs, chronometrics and HBD as a whole.
That’s what make HBD silly, people who know nothing, who are miles away from any reality but pretend to be able to explain everything.
>That applies only to the highest rank of the nobility something like the top 0,0001%.
Landed gentry were a larger segment of the population then than now.
>The traders, bourgeois, the Jews, doctors etc. were in the cities and had little opportunity to move out.
Well given that traders made it their business in part to move goods from place to place for a living and bourgeois and Jews had means, they did. Once again, an anecdotal example is that Cambridge sent all of its students home, a good segment of whom came from various bourgeois elements in society (Like Isaac Newton)
>Which wasn’t necessarily the case.
Wasn’t necessarily always, but more often than not.
>And can you tell me which areas of land provide the seeds for a more intellectual society ?
Well you’ve freely admitted as part of your own counter-argument that Europe had a relative bounty that allowed for its civilized development versus Africa, which did not.
>and a tougher environment makes it easier for the dullest to propagate
Tougher environments favour skills like strength, confidence, size, ability to hunt and organize by intimidation.
More livable environments allowed for the development of civilization based on agrarian advancements, which favours those who can trade most effectively and parlay their ownership/claimancy of land, social abilities, and mathematical or legalistic prowess into positions of authority power and plenty. The exemplar of this being Thomas Cromwell.
>Since social class doesn’t equal household income and blacks making $100k likely find themselves in a comparable milieu as whites making $20k
As I’ve said, social factors will still be at play for both groups to undefined amounts, one can’t definitively suggest that blacks get off necessarily worse, and even if they did, that this fully accounts for the gap in performance when it’s known that at least to some degree whites have their developments inhibited by socio-cultural factors too.
>your argument is weak. What share of poor whites apply for college ? What share of rich blacks apply for college ? There are self-selection effects at play here.
I’m aware there are self-selection effects at play, but we cannot assume that socio-cultural factors and even factors of nutrition disfavour blacks relative to whites.
The strangest result of the study is an apparent lack of a self-selection effect for rich blacks, as I’ve described.
>No, they are not difficult to account for,
They’re difficult to account for in that they’re difficult to measure and nebulous, what I mean by this is that the extent to which black cultural expectations affect the average result of any given test, it may be for example that this is counter-acted by whites who do not behave according to the stereotypes balancing out those who do and producing a result that’s closer to an average black student unimpeded by stereotype than not.
Added to that you have to account for whether or not the other group being compared to has similar inhibitions to their performance as I’ve described and the significance of the effect that has on their performance.
It may even be that in both groups there are even highly-motivated over-achievers who even out the average result, in fact a rich black kid born in a poorer neighbourhood than his affluence suggests may potentially have a chip on his shoulder that encourages him to be aggressively upwardly mobile.
“Landed gentry were a larger segment of the population then than now.”
That’s still negligible and unlikely to select for IQ.
“Well given that traders made it their business in part to move goods from place to place for a living and bourgeois and Jews had means, they did. ”
Traders actually brought and disseminated the plague. And for people to leave their residence, they need to have a place where they can stay with available foods and everything necessary to their survival, especially those who have no farming skills. The hotel infrastructure of that time was not what it is today.
“Well you’ve freely admitted as part of your own counter-argument that Europe had a relative bounty that allowed for its civilized development versus Africa, which did not.”
No, I said Europe had the best predispositions for population growth, not intellectual development. Population growth leads to technological development through the most simple equation: more people = more brains.
“Tougher environments favour skills like strength, confidence, size, ability to hunt and organize by intimidation.”
Might be true about tougher social environments, but tougher natural environments only select those who can adapt to natural elements. See, if you’re too confident in the rainforest, you might prematurely die, if you’re too confident in the French countryside, you’re not expected to pay it with your life.
Remember that natural selection is not magic. A selected genotype needs to bring significantly more chance of reproduction than a non-selected one (reduced infant mortality, better food tolerance, disease resistance…).And this effect needs to be stronger than random genetic drift.
“which favours those who can trade most effectively and parlay their ownership/claimancy of land, social abilities, and mathematical or legalistic prowess into positions of authority power and plenty.”
Translate it in terms of survival rate and reproduction rate, taking regression to mediocrity into account…
“I’m aware there are self-selection effects at play, but we cannot assume that socio-cultural factors and even factors of nutrition disfavour blacks relative to whites.
The strangest result of the study is an apparent lack of a self-selection effect for rich blacks, as I’ve described.”
I’ve quickly made some research about the SAT and I realized that it was not even a test that you could fail. It’s highly dependent on one’s college aspirations, there is no incentive to achieve a higher score than what your target college requires. Lots of students might not even care about the prestige of the college they target, they will likely chose a place where they can easily get a degree without too much personal investment. This kind of test is in fact highly dependent on cultural/motivational factors.
“It may even be that in both groups there are even highly-motivated over-achievers who even out the average result, in fact a rich black kid born in a poorer neighbourhood than his affluence suggests may potentially have a chip on his shoulder that encourages him to be aggressively upwardly mobile.”
Yeah… speculations… Are you in the field of education ? Are you in the field of genetics ?
I’m in neither fields, I don’t pretend I know more than you. I just showed you that the persistence of the gap across income levels hid an income – neighborhood quality gap of a similar magnitude. Maybe they should use the neighborhood deprivation index like in the British chart above instead of incomes, and address the real issue of racial segregation.On the other hand, I have no document in the field of genetics that can explain anything related to this gap in SAT scores.
The problem with the SAT/income/race data is that even controlling for social class, being raised by whites appears to increase IQ (though probably not real intelligence)
The Moore (1986) study found that african americans adopted by middle class whites scored about 13 IQ points higher than african americans adopted by middle class blacks, but the kids were young (7-10) and family effects fade with age, though I expect they fade less on the SAT, where the correlation with family income seems abnormally high for late adolescence.
On the other hand the SAT is biased in favour of blacks & Jews in that includes few spatial problems, though spatial ability is largely irrelevant in most university subjects so it makes sense to minimize it.
There are 1066 journals in the field of education
http://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?category=3304
And 283 in the field of developmental and educational psychology
http://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?category=3204
So, your 1986 study might contain part of the answer, but I think a lot more has been said on that topic since then.
Oops, I forgot, there are also 310 journals in genetics.
http://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?category=1311&area=1300
>unlikely to select for IQ.
A group that’s successful in a society that’s more demanding of a more sophisticated social understanding and ability to organize not only the land but the goings on and economies of your local lands and whose elite society demands strong education and prizes it is unlikely to select for IQ?
It seems very likely that it does
> And for people to leave their residence, they need to have a place where they can stay with available foods and everything necessary to their survival, especially those who have no farming skills. The hotel infrastructure of that time was not what it is today.
Pubs and Taverns.
>No, I said Europe had the best predispositions for population growth, not intellectual development. Population growth leads to technological development through the most simple equation: more people = more brains.
More population growth due to a livable environment creates technological development resulting in a society that is more likely to self-select people who are smarter, particularly verbally as they are best suited to exploit it for their own benefit and thus propogate.
You can extrapolate this as a likelihood.
>but tougher natural environments only select those who can adapt to natural elements. See, if you’re too confident in the rainforest, you might prematurely die
Or you might become the leader of your tribe. Natural selection depends on groups and works through probability.
>Translate it in terms of survival rate and reproduction rate, taking regression to mediocrity into account…
I mean I could certainly create an extensive study based on empirical research quantifying the various effects if I were an academic or so inclined but we’re talking about best heuristics based on what seems causally likely. And one would suspect that regression to the mean would be a real effect but the children of the rich that were less able would potentially be less successful and less likely therefore to propogate than their more intelligent and adaptable relatives.
“A group that’s successful in a society that’s more demanding of a more sophisticated social understanding and ability to organize not only the land but the goings on and economies of your local lands and whose elite society demands strong education and prizes it is unlikely to select for IQ?”
The European feudal nobility are the descendants of the Germanic warrior caste who took over the western half of Europe as a result of Völkerwanderung. Intelligence had nothing to do with their accession to power in the first place. Second, what we will call the business class never accounted for more than 2% of the population (pre-industrial Europe was 95% rural) and those lucky few owed their position by their local lord’s arbitrary decision to allow them to do business. If we are to talk about scholars, colleges mostly taught 3 subjects: law, theology, and “medecine”. Meritocracy was non-existent compared to China which had Imperial Examinations, Mandarins. Europe was much more arbitrary and nepotic. So no class could have been selected for intelligence since no class was defined by its intelligence.
“Pubs and Taverns.”
Nonsense.
“More population growth due to a livable environment creates technological development resulting in a society that is more likely to self-select people who are smarter, particularly verbally as they are best suited to exploit it for their own benefit and thus propogate.”
But how does it create differentials in mortality and fertility that will cause the less fit to pass on fewer genes than the fittest.
“Or you might become the leader of your tribe. Natural selection depends on groups and works through probability.”
Lol, no tribal chiefs have their legitimacy embedded in religion and custom. Tribes are not gangs.
“I mean I could certainly create an extensive study based on empirical research”
Go ahead, there are thousands of journals in genetics, anthropology, psychology, education or ethnology with hundreds of thousands of peer-reviewed articles. You should find some interesting things, I posted some links above if you wanna suscribe to one. Or maybe you prefer “easy heuristics”.
>The European feudal nobility are the descendants of the Germanic warrior caste who took over the western half of Europe as a result of Völkerwanderung. Intelligence had nothing to do with their accession to power in the first place.
Military strategy is an exercise in problem solving itself dependent on intelligence, but it’s not just about how they came to power but the conditions they existed in when they got it and who was most successful in those conditions.
>So no class could have been selected for intelligence since no class was defined by its intelligence.
Just because no class was as openly defined by intelligence doesn’t mean that the conditions of Europe socially weren’t such that he with the highest verbal intelligence for example couldn’t adapt more quickly the situation he was in to his advantage.
I’m not claiming Europe was Meritocratic to the same degree as China and don’t have to, all I have to demonstrate is that it had cultural conditions that made it more likely to select for intelligence than most African communities throughout history and for a longer period of time.
>Nonsense.
Very convincing.
>But how does it create differentials in mortality and fertility that will cause the less fit to pass on fewer genes than the fittest.
If the largest segment of the population lives in abject poverty and conditions that are more likely to cause mortality and at a younger age, and another is in relative comfort, it is entirely likely that a selection effect benefiting the most intelligent will take place to some degree.
Especially when you consider the high rates of child mortality and the better conditions someone with means has to engender a higher survival rate and the fact that the poorest and least adaptable would potentially be cautious about the number of mouths to feed they can afford.
>Lol, no tribal chiefs have their legitimacy embedded in religion and custom. Tribes are not gangs.
Are you seriously denying that aggression and confidence has no part in the ability of other people to put trust in you?
>Or maybe you prefer “easy heuristics”.
Don’t be bitter.
“Military strategy is an exercise in problem solving itself dependent on intelligence,”
Völkerwanderung is part of a larger trend of population movements in northern Eurasia, they moved West pushed by the Huns and other Central-Asian nomadic tribes. They could have headed toward Byzantium, but they went west where the Western Roman Empire was already on the verge of collapsing. Examples of relatively primitive populations taking advantage of a more advanced civilization’s decadence to take over it are numerous in human history.
“all I have to demonstrate is that it had cultural conditions that made it more likely to select for intelligence than most African communities throughout history and for a longer period of time.”
Go ahead, with empirical evidence.
“If the largest segment of the population lives in abject poverty and conditions that are more likely to cause mortality and at a younger age, and another is in relative comfort, it is entirely likely that a selection effect benefiting the most intelligent will take place to some degree.”
It’s only likely if well off owe their comfort to intelligence. Nowadays, in the time of meritocracy and knowledge economy, the IQ-income correlation is .40
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Income
Just imagine what it would have been when all that made sense was religion and brute force.
“Especially when you consider the high rates of child mortality and the better conditions someone with means has to engender a higher survival rate and the fact that the poorest and least adaptable would potentially be cautious about the number of mouths to feed they can afford.”
Human populations always lived up to the Malthusian limit of their land, the issues of resource competition and food scarcity were the same whatever the level of technology or natural endowment. And non, traditional agrarian societies don’t think of children in terms of mouths to feed but in terms of new farmhands. Children going to school and not working until they are 14+ only became the norm in some western countries during the 20th century.
“Don’t be bitter.”
I ain’t.
>Examples of relatively primitive populations taking advantage of a more advanced civilization’s decadence to take over it are numerous in human history.
The ability to take advantage of the situation is again, an example of problem solving.
>Go ahead, with empirical evidence.
We’ve described a huge amount of conditions wholly likely to select more intensely for problem solving in this conversation alone.
I might not have exhaustively quantified it, but as the Philostomy bag said if your girl walks home reeking of sex and liquor it’s very doubtful that she’s been faithful and waiting for her new boy to reveal himself before you admit it to yourself and acknowledge that it’s likely and operate based on the assumption that it’s true is a little bit silly.
>It’s only likely if well off owe their comfort to intelligence.
Well to a certain extent they do but that’s not the point, the point is that said comfort is more likely to create the conditions most easily exploited by people gifted with intelligence.
As you’ve said, comfort is civilizing, it allows for population growth which allows for the growth of sophisticated societies which in turn are more easily manipulated by people who are more intellectually gifted and thus more likely to pass on their genes.
>And non, traditional agrarian societies don’t think of children in terms of mouths to feed but in terms of new farmhands
Only after a long, exhaustive, resource-depleting period of rearing. Assuming they even make it through that process and don’t waste the resources, assuming that it’s not traumatic for the mother.
“The ability to take advantage of the situation is again, an example of problem solving.”
That’s opportunism, bands of armed savages pour on a decadent civilization’s territory that has lost most of its armed forces and cohesion.
“We’ve described a huge amount of conditions wholly likely to select more intensely for problem solving in this conversation alone.”
You have done this I have not. One type of evidence that I would accept as indicative of different rates of selection for intelligence is the differing prevalence of syndromic mental disability (excluding chromosomal anomalies) between population. That would show that some environments could have made it more or less difficult for the mentally disabled to adapt.
“the point is that said comfort is more likely to create the conditions most easily exploited by people gifted with intelligence.”
Who’s more at risk of dying and not reproducing in a comfortable environment ?
“Only after a long, exhaustive, resource-depleting period of rearing. ”
Boy, come back down to earth. Kids in the third world are in the fields from age 5 and are fed little before that.
>That’s opportunism
Opportunism can’t be good decision-making? Evidently it is.
>You have done this I have not.
You’ve done it, you just refuse to extrapolate the possible consequences these factors have on intelligence. Wait for exhaustive quantative data if it suits you, seems like an “Enviromental IQ difference of the Gaps” to me.
>Who’s more at risk of dying and not reproducing in a comfortable environment?
Those without the ability to adapt well to it.
>Kids in the third world are in the fields from age 5 and are fed little before that.
4 years they need to be fed or by 5 they will be unable to function, 4 years within which they are likely to die. When you have a child in poor conditions as the less able to adapt did, you’re taking a huge risk.
Not to mention that 4 years in the past was a long period of time that could mean greater potential for parent mortality and thus the family dying before the child is old enough to work to benefit his family.
“Opportunism can’t be good decision-making? Evidently it is.”
Opportunism is taking advantage of less challenging circumstances, I doesn’t only remove some selection for excellence but it is very often a factor of chance. Had the Western Roman Empire been in good shape at that time, the Germans would have had to deal with the Central Asian nomads.
“You’ve done it, you just refuse to extrapolate the possible consequences these factors have on intelligence.”
I don’t do these extrapolations because natural selection is not magic. Not every difference in phenotype is a difference in fitness that creates some selection. Do road accidents cause natural selection for safe driving ? Does gang warfare selects against crime just because criminals have higher mortality than the general population ? Does war causes natural selection against war because warlike populations reduce their numbers ? No, that’s stupid.
“Those without the ability to adapt well to it.”
What are the abilities required to adapt to a comfortable environment ? Try being precise, imagine at one instance in which comfort reduces the fitness of an individual relative to another.
“4 years they need to be fed or by 5 they will be unable to function, 4 years within which they are likely to die. When you have a child in poor conditions as the less able to adapt did, you’re taking a huge risk.
Not to mention that 4 years in the past was a long period of time that could mean greater potential for parent mortality and thus the family dying before the child is old enough to work to benefit his family.”
You might not be aware of it but generally in the past and in today’s third world, when food is scarce, priority goes to the father, then the older sons and the mother, then the daughters and the toddlers. The younger a child is, the more replaceable he is. Agrarian societies care little for the well being of children, and love is not what family is built on.
>Opportunism is taking advantage of less challenging circumstances
But the process of knowing when to take advantage of these circumstances takes some degree of intelligence, greater than those who have failed to take advantage of it.
>I don’t do these extrapolations because natural selection is not magic.
It doesn’t have to be to do those extrapolations.
>Does gang warfare selects against crime just because criminals have higher mortality than the general population ?
Other than two explosive wars, the modern world is generally speaking more peaceful than the ancient world. So those who are warlike are less likely to survive and pass on their genes (Unless there’s some other unforseen advantage to being warlike)
>What are the abilities required to adapt to a comfortable environment ?
Comfortable environments result in more sophisticated civilizations, more sophisticated civilizations mean increasingly sophisticated trading occurs, increasingly sophisticated trading means that people who are intelligent can best take advantage of the new environment.
If I can best take advantage, I can be a more successful, if I am more successful, I’m a more desirable bachelor.
>The younger a child is, the more replaceable he is. Agrarian societies care little for the well being of children, and love is not what family is built on.
It’s still necessary to rear them, unless you intend for them to die, in which case your offspring are less likely to be successful than someone who’s richer.
The offspring of the rich are more survivable than the offspring of the poor, and those rich are entirely likely to be better able to adapt the situation to their advantage than those poor.
“But the process of knowing when to take advantage of these circumstances takes some degree of intelligence, greater than those who have failed to take advantage of it.”
In the case of the Germans moving westwards, that’s not relevant. They were forced westwards and had the luck to find a crumbling empire there.
“Other than two explosive wars, the modern world is generally speaking more peaceful than the ancient world. So those who are warlike are less likely to survive and pass on their genes (Unless there’s some other unforseen advantage to being warlike)”
Thank the UNO, Nuclear proliferation and free trade, forget about the genocides (Rwanda, Armenia and others I might not have in mind now), all the civil wars and so on.
“If I can best take advantage, I can be a more successful, if I am more successful, I’m a more desirable bachelor.”
But everybody finds a mate, celibacy is a 20th century phenomenon. Being a more desirable bachelor will just make you achieve more desirable marriage conditions. This could have implications for sexual selection in a polygamous society like it’s the case with documented examples of successful African traders buying 20 wives and having on average 10 children with each. but monogamous societies remove a large part of sexual selection’s potential to change the genome.
“It’s still necessary to rear them, unless you intend for them to die, in which case your offspring are less likely to be successful than someone who’s richer.”
In fact, nourishing toddlers was a minor concern because breastfeeding can last up to 7 years. And births were not planned, they just happened. If on child died, the mother was probably already pregnant with the replacing child.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weaning#Age_of_weaning
What wearing are you talking about ? Children learnt agricultural and social norms work by observation.
“The offspring of the rich are more survivable than the offspring of the poor”
That’s true in every society that lives to its malthusian limit. And it affects intelligence only if the rich are more intelligent.
>n the case of the Germans moving westwards, that’s not relevant. They were forced westwards and had the luck to find a crumbling empire there.
Fair enough. I’m not arguing the case that military strategy is necessarily a major factor in selection, though it is an element of intelligence.
>Thank the UNO, Nuclear proliferation and free trade, forget about the genocides (Rwanda, Armenia and others I might not have in mind now), all the civil wars and so on.
As a proportion, the world is more peaceful. And yes those are some of the more major reasons.
>But everybody finds a mate, celibacy is a 20th century phenomenon. Being a more desirable bachelor will just make you achieve more desirable marriage conditions.
And have many children that survive to adulthood and of those children the most successful in turn have more children increasing the of survival of the most able to manipulate the system, and most intelligent as a proportion of the population.
>In fact, nourishing toddlers was a minor concern because breastfeeding can last up to 7 years
This requires a mother well-fed enough to be able to produce milk without dying herself due to malnutrition.
Before we go further, I think it’s pertinent that I describe our respective arguments without creating a caricature of your own for brevity:
I believe that the sophistication of a civilization with better resources meant that those best able to manipulate it will proliferate thus increasing the intelligent as a proportion of the population (Whether they be landed gentry or the nascent developing industrialist/capitalist/bourgeois class or what was becoming them Traders, moneylenders, so on and so forth)
You believe that the society required no such better ability to adapt to due to the inherited wealth of a warrior class (Landed Gentry) and that the nascent bourgeoise was statistically insignficant in their impact on the average intelligence.
I argue that inherited wealth made the situation not so uncompetitive that those with it did not require to adapt. I posit that the more successful amongst them in this competitive environment were more successful in self-proliferation and that over many thousands of years in Europe this resulted in a statistically significant effect on IQ in the modern era.
I also argue that those least able to adapt had conditions so poor for a very long time such that they grew to be a smaller proportion of the population relative to the classes described above.
I would further argue that the plague caused a genetic bottleneck to a certain extent with an undefined but possibly significant effect on IQ.
“And have many children that survive to adulthood and of those children the most successful in turn have more children increasing the of survival of the most able to manipulate the system, and most intelligent as a proportion of the population.”
Your model only favors the most adapted in the access to food (healthcare being non existant to for anyone) but the historical trend has been that cities were the worst affected by famines since city dwellers (who most likely had more advanced knowledge) had no lands and no farming skills.
Moreover, for natural selection for intelligence to happen, fitness had to be determined by intelligence: your society has to be an IQcracy with no interference, IQ needs to be a hereditary trait with no environmental interference, otherwise some people will be selected without carrying IQ genes and finally, the selected segment needs to be sufficiently large or it’s going to be genetically submerged by the less fit segment.
“This requires a mother well-fed enough to be able to produce milk without dying herself due to malnutrition.”
Doesn’t seem to have real significance. I don’t know about other countries but in France, rich city women used to send their young children to the countryside to be breastfed by peasant women who were called “Nourrices”. So apparently, peasant women were to take part in some sort of breastfeeding outsourcing.
“You believe that the society required no such better ability to adapt to due to the inherited wealth of a warrior class (Landed Gentry) and that the nascent bourgeoise was statistically insignficant in their impact on the average intelligence.”
Not only were their numbers negligible, but their success was not due to intelligence, because it came from the arbitrary will of the nobility.
“I also argue that those least able to adapt had conditions so poor for a very long time such that they grew to be a smaller proportion of the population relative to the classes described above.”
The social classes that “worked with their brains” only became a significant part of the population in the late 19th century. But food production had already exploded and medicine was able to cure a large number of conditions. And a real IQcratic economy only appeared since post-industrial era.
>but the historical trend has been that cities were the worst affected by famines since city dwellers (who most likely had more advanced knowledge) had no lands and no farming skills.
That’ll be mediated by income, with the richest in cities having more purchasing power on the limited resources available during famines and those traders (A profession which selects for intelligence) who refuse to sell surving over the poor, who will die more often, more quickly, and in greater numbers.
> fitness had to be determined by intelligence: your society has to be an IQcracy with no interference
No it doesn’t, a number of skills highly correlate with intelligence and are highly desirable. A strong ability to persuade people of your point of view correlates with verbal intelligence to a certain extent and that is highly desirable and when not desirable, makes itself more desirable by virtue of it’s ability to persuade you that it is.
> otherwise some people will be selected without carrying IQ genes
I don’t doubt that, I do doubt that that segment of the population will be larger than those with high IQ genes.
>Doesn’t seem to have real significance.
Doesn’t seem /= doesn’t. If you can’t feed yourself, you can’t feed your kids. That at points well-fed peasants were wet nurses to the young of the rich doesn’t necessarily show that at all points they were well fed enough to do this for their own kids, let alone the rich.
Also I’ll clarify on my abbreviated description of your beliefs that you believe that their success was achieved through force rather than intelligence and that their status was thereafter protected by inherited wealth.
> the selected segment needs to be sufficiently large or it’s going to be genetically submerged by the less fit segment
I want to emphasize that we’re talking about small improvements upon the average at different times and to different extents, culminating in the results we see today.
The small difference in the advancing proportion of the genetically more fit and the receding proportion of the genetically less fit over time contributed to the results that we see today.
I would suspect it’s why well-nourished Africans seem to have results in the 80’s, and well nourished Whites have results in the early 100’s.
Small differences over time resulting in around a 15-20 point advantage.
“That’ll be mediated by income, with the richest in cities having more purchasing power on the limited resources available during famines”
That again accounts for a negligible share of the global population.
” who refuse to sell surving over the poor, who will die more often, more quickly, and in greater numbers.”
In the first place, merchants would have been unable to buy, the peasants would have kept the few foods they have to feed themselves instead of selling for some money that would become worthless amid food price inflation.
“No it doesn’t, a number of skills highly correlate with intelligence and are highly desirable.”
It does, if intelligence is what is selected for, then selection acts on intelligence, not its correlates. Low latitudes select for dark skin, not the correlates of dark skin like full lips and flat nose.
“I don’t doubt that, I do doubt that that segment of the population will be larger than those with high IQ genes.”
If it were today, with an IQ-income correlation of 0.40 and an heritability of IQ at 0.50, lots of people would survive without any IQ gene.
“I want to emphasize that we’re talking about small improvements upon the average at different times and to different extents, culminating in the results we see today.”
Those improvements had to be strong. Europe out of the Mediterranean was not civilized until around 500 AD, some parts of Northern and Eastern Europe only entered the medieval era sometime after 1000 AD.
“I would suspect it’s why well-nourished”
What is well-nourished ?
>That again accounts for a negligible share of the global population.
Which becomes greater over time as a proportion of the population in urban centres as the poor die off or are less successful relative to this richer caste at proliferation.
>In the first place, merchants would have been unable to buy,
Merchants are likely to keep pre-existing large supplies for the purposes of selling to their customers, which they now hoard.
>It does, if intelligence is what is selected for, then selection acts on intelligence, not its correlates.
Intelligences correlates have a causal relationship with intelligence.
>Those improvements had to be strong. Europe out of the Mediterranean was not civilized until around 500 AD, some parts of Northern and Eastern Europe only entered the medieval era sometime after 1000 AD.
Incremental advances towards civilization and the beginnings of sophisticated structures best taken advantage of by the intelligent such as trading, had begun long before then and were part of the basis that sophisticated, fuller and more recognizable civilizations were built on. They formed part of a nascent pre-existing infrastructure.
>What is well-nourished ?
“I would suspect it’s why well-nourished Africans seem to have results in the 80’s, and well nourished Whites have results in the early 100’s. (IQ results)
Small differences over time resulting in around a 15-20 point advantage.”
“Which becomes greater over time as a proportion of the population in urban centres as the poor die off or are less successful relative to this richer caste at proliferation.”
OK, so we must expect that the smartest cities in Europe are the ancient centers of trade: Istanbul, Florence, Genoa, Venice, Hamburg, Amsterdam, Antwerp. You are aware that nothing in your general theory is corroborated by actual historical and genetic findings ?
“Merchants are likely to keep pre-existing large supplies for the purposes of selling to their customers, which they now hoard.”
Alright, I’ll agree with that. But how intelligent are traders today ? Were they more intelligent in the past ? See all these traders everywhere in Africa today, would they have been selected ?
“Intelligences correlates have a causal relationship with intelligence.”
Tell me more.
“had begun long before then and were part of the basis that sophisticated, fuller and more recognizable civilizations were built on.”
No, it’s the spread of Mediterranean culture and technology thanks to Christianity.
“I would suspect it’s why well-nourished Africans seem to have results in the 80’s, and well nourished Whites have results in the early 100’s. (IQ results)
Small differences over time resulting in around a 15-20 point advantage.”
How do you define well nourished ?
>OK, so we must expect that the smartest cities in Europe are the ancient centers of trade: Istanbul, Florence, Genoa, Venice, Hamburg, Amsterdam, Antwerp.
Not necessarily as travel became a more practical consideration, especially after the invention of the railway and as other cities became more developed and convenient for trade, employment, and academic purposes.
>Alright, I’ll agree with that. But how intelligent are traders today ?
That’s too broad a category, the nascent middle-class of then is the diverse middle-class of today and that encompasses too many jobs to count. The descendents of these people find it more convenient and rewarding to work in, say, finance selling stocks and shares or insurance than buying and selling actual goods at the market (Though it has been remarked anecdotally that quick-witted sons of East London market traders tend to do better in financial services than overly-analytical Oxbridge educated toffs). The kinds of people that would have gone into trade then, go into a vast number of professions now ranging from very intellectually demanding to not so demanding.
>Tell me more.
Verbal IQ is the potential that allows me to master persuasion more quickly than the guy next to me. Of course there will be hyper-motivated people who master techniques of persuasion by virtue of their motivation and thus will do so as quickly and well as I do, but I suspect there are fewer of these than there are people whose verbal IQ makes it simply difficult for them to fail to learn these abilities.
>No, it’s the spread of Mediterranean culture and technology thanks to Christianity.
I mean even pre-dating recognizable Mediterranean cultures. Sophisticated cultures like that are the fruits of sophisticated minds based on building sophisticated systems. They may further self-select for intelligent people to proliferate, but they are themselves a product of a long line of self-selection effects.
>How do you define well nourished ?
A certain amount of assumption goes into this but what I mean to describe is equally affluent white and black families who can afford to give their children equally good nutriton.
Of course you could argue that traditional foods of the respective cultures have different nutritional values and that could have an impact.
>Not necessarily as travel became a more practical consideration, especially after the invention of the railway and as other cities became more developed and convenient for trade, employment, and academic purposes…
…it became convenient for people to move into these newly developing areas and marked an opportunity to take advantage of new developments. To invest in projects, to create businesses with less competition and set yourself up as a central figure in the community.
“Not necessarily as travel became a more practical consideration, especially after the invention of the railway and as other cities became more developed and convenient for trade, employment, and academic purposes.”
Yet if a place is the epicenter of an episode of natural selection, the prevalence of the associated alleles has to be higher there since they have been around for a while. It’s like surnames, some families have been so large and influential in some places that you can see their surnames and their legacy over-represented in the identity of the place.
“That’s too broad a category, the nascent middle-class of then is the diverse middle-class of today and that encompasses too many jobs to count. ”
What about the African traders that I told you about, are their children going to occupy a large array of middle class jobs or evolution doesn’t go this far in Africa ?
“Verbal IQ is the potential that allows me to master persuasion more quickly than the guy next to me. Of course there will be hyper-motivated people who master techniques of persuasion by virtue of their motivation and thus will do so as quickly and well as I do, but I suspect there are fewer of these than there are people whose verbal IQ makes it simply difficult for them to fail to learn these abilities.”
And how does a lack of verbal IQ would cause someone to have fewer descendants ?
“Incremental advances towards civilization and the beginnings of sophisticated structures best taken advantage of by the intelligent such as trading, had begun long before then and were part of the basis that sophisticated, fuller and more recognizable civilizations were built on. They formed part of a nascent pre-existing infrastructure.”
No, these societies developed thanks to population growth and inter-regional exchange. Nothing was done by concerted design by stone-age men who said “one day, our descendants will be civilized”.
“A certain amount of assumption goes into this but what I mean to describe is equally affluent white and black families who can afford to give their children equally good nutriton.”
They can surely afford, but do they ?
>Yet if a place is the epicenter of an episode of natural selection, the prevalence of the associated alleles has to be higher there since they have been around for a while. It’s like surnames, some families have been so large and influential in some places that you can see their surnames and their legacy over-represented in the identity of the place.
When it comes to the modern era, the opportunities for intelligent people and the means to achieve them via travel caused greater diffusion and the development of travel first from trains and second to the automobile caused such diffusion to increase exponentially.
Some families might have been well-established but such an establishment might well mean that they had even greater means and reason to expand (To spread their influence)
So yes there will have been some degree of concentration, but this will be massively mediated by the opportunities presented by travel, and given that the opportunities presented by travel were enormous, once can assume that the diffusion of those with means to take advantage of those advantages would also be enormous.
>What about the African traders that I told you about, are their children going to occupy a large array of middle class jobs or evolution doesn’t go this far in Africa ?
The problems are as you described them. The harsh conditions of Africa meant that such trading was less frequent and selected for. Still present but not as successful relative to the general population as the people so initially inclined do not have the means to do as much trading given the lack of an agrarian base.
>And how does a lack of verbal IQ would cause someone to have fewer descendants ?
If one is less persuasive, one is less successful. This lack of success will perhaps on average resulted in a lack of proliferation.
But the more important thing that can be gathered is that in any case it is likely that those with abilities like the ones I’ve described will be more successful and grow consequently as a proportion of the population; over time growth of this kind can begin to have a statistically significant effect on the average IQ of a given population.
>No, these societies developed thanks to population growth and inter-regional exchange. Nothing was done by concerted design by stone-age men who said “one day, our descendants will be civilized”.
It doesn’t have to be and that’s not the point I was making. Inter-regional exchange creates a self-selection effect for those that can best take advantage of it. The nascent infrastructures that developed that we’re both agree happened, create self-selection effects that benefit the intelligent.
One does not to have a long-term goal, this is just a logical consequence of agrarianism and the good conditions of pre-historic Europe (Amongst other areas)
>but do they ?
See
>Of course you could argue that traditional foods of the respective cultures have different nutritional values and that could have an impact.
You can argue minutae of nutrition till the cows come home.
If one is less persuasive, one is less successful. This lack of success will perhaps on average have* resulted in a lack of proliferation
“So yes there will have been some degree of concentration”
Then this degree of concentration must show up in the genetic composition and average IQ of a given area.
“The problems are as you described them. The harsh conditions of Africa meant that such trading was less frequent and selected for. Still present but not as successful relative to the general population as the people so initially inclined do not have the means to do as much trading given the lack of an agrarian base.”
I’m talking about the traders (and all skilled small businessmen) you see everywhere in today’s African cities and towns.
“It doesn’t have to be and that’s not the point I was making. Inter-regional exchange creates a self-selection effect for those that can best take advantage of it. The nascent infrastructures that developed that we’re both agree happened, create self-selection effects that benefit the intelligent.”
Really speculative, and imaginative.
“You can argue minutae of nutrition till the cows come home.”
There’s a wealth of (empirical) evidence that the nutritional status of blacks is much poorer than that of whites in the US.
>Then this degree of concentration must show up in the genetic composition and average IQ of a given area.
Not necessarily, remember that even prior to the invention of the train they would have been slowly dispersing from their ancestral seat and expanding out “In search of fame and fortune” and attempting to create more independent wealth and establish themselves. The exponential increase of this with the inventions thereafter allow for this to happen en masse.
To put it one way, if you failed to do this it’s entirely possible that you’re either older and thus have no desire to take the risk of moving or perhaps not as bright or risk-taking as your equivalents.
In this way the brightest dispersed to areas of opportunity, “Growth” areas if you like and once word got out about the extent of growth in these areas and the opportunities they held, even more relatives and peers moved to these areas further increasing the effect of the dispersion.
We are looking here at the triple effect of the inventions of the train, the automobile, and mass communication.
>I’m talking about the traders (and all skilled small businessmen) you see everywhere in today’s African cities and towns.
I don’t doubt that they’re cleverer than your average African. Quick-witted and imaginative.
>Really speculative, and imaginative.
We are speculating and criticising between us a possible causal chain that could explain a genetic IQ gap, after all.
>There’s a wealth of (empirical) evidence that the nutritional status of blacks is much poorer than that of whites in the US.
But of middle class blacks in Africa to people of equivalent wealth in the UK for example?
It seems reasonable for me to suppose that the cultural conditions for the common acceptance of mass-produced deeply unhealthy foods in America, do not exist in say Nigeria and thus those that can afford good nutrition likely will have good nutrition.
That we’re both agreeing happened*
“Not necessarily”
I live in a city, Nantes, that was the hub of the slave trade in France, the great fortunes of the slave trade have given birth to the city’s most influential bourgeois families, the concentration effect is huge and similar in every city that used to be active in a given activity.
“I don’t doubt that they’re cleverer than your average African. Quick-witted and imaginative.”
But they are your average African, most of them or their parents were born in villages, a lot are illiterate or have received very little schooling, they are the average city dweller.
“It seems reasonable for me to suppose that the cultural conditions for the common acceptance of mass-produced deeply unhealthy foods in America, do not exist in say Nigeria and thus those that can afford good nutrition likely will have good nutrition.”
You can’t be more wrong, they are fond of instant noodles, since they worship everything that comes from the West they see KFC and other fast-food outlets as upscale restaurant. The degree of food education is null in Africa and the developing world as a whole, and obesity is progressing there at alarming rates.
>I live in a city, Nantes, that was the hub of the slave trade in France, the great fortunes of the slave trade have given birth to the city’s most influential bourgeois families, the concentration effect is huge and similar in every city that used to be active in a given activity.
Maybe central families, but consider branch families, further consider many of the less successful but still bourgeois families seeking to find their fame and fortune.
When you point out a few families of influence this is just selection bias on your part. The vast majority of people who met this bourgeois criteria had good reason to move. Perhaps those that had such exceptional wealth did not but as we have learned in recent years taking advantage of new opportunities will allow you to supplant the old order and many/most fortune 500 companies were started relatively to very recently, my point? Those with sufficient intelligence to recognize the new possibilities before them in moving, will move.
>But they are your average African, most of them or their parents were born in villages
If they’re successful, they will be more intelligent than the average African. That’s the self-selection effect at play.
>You can’t be more wrong, they are fond of instant noodles, since they worship everything that comes from the West they see KFC and other fast-food outlets as upscale restaurant
But they also have a broader traditional diet which is significantly less fattening and dangerous to your health. Obesity may be progressing, but until the Western diet totally supplants their own, they will be arguably better fed than their US counterparts if they can afford to be.
“When you point out a few families of influence this is just selection bias on your part. The vast majority of people who met this bourgeois criteria had good reason to move.”
Nantes is the economic hub of France’s northwestern quarter, ambitious people move in, not out or only to Paris or overseas.
“If they’re successful, they will be more intelligent than the average African. That’s the self-selection effect at play.”
They have some degree of success otherwise they’d go back to the fields. Thad said, they all account for a much larger part of Africa’s population than the selected classes that you were talking about ever did in pre-industrial Europe.
“But they also have a broader traditional diet which is significantly less fattening and dangerous to your health.”
They have more options in terms of non-processed foods, food safety standards are non-existent and food intoxication is widespread. Some local foods are fat and unhealthy too, it’s not just foreign products, it’s just that those who can afford to eat a lot eat a lot with no nutritional awareness.
>Nantes is the economic hub of France’s northwestern quarter, ambitious people move in, not out or only to Paris or overseas.
If it’s rich in the modern era it conforms to my rule rather than flouts it that people move towards opportunity, the bourgeois would disperse somewhat to Paris and other economic hubs (Especially developing ones, during the industrial age and subsequent eras of economic accelerated returns thereafter)
>They have some degree of success otherwise they’d go back to the fields. Thad said, they all account for a much larger part of Africa’s population than the selected classes that you were talking about ever did in pre-industrial Europe.
Well perhaps now that Africa is becoming Westernized and that means exporting the means necessary for developing sophisticated civilizations, over many years this will result in a very advanced bourgeoisie. The only problem that this theory has is that it has to compete with other more modernized civilizations.
>food safety standards are non-existent and food intoxication is widespread.
But at the very least the middle classes will be better nourished and able to access high-quality nutrition.
“If it’s rich in the modern era it conforms to my rule rather than flouts it that people move towards opportunity, the bourgeois would disperse somewhat to Paris and other economic hubs (Especially developing ones, during the industrial age and subsequent eras of economic accelerated returns thereafter)”
We would still expect a concentration of high IQ genes there.
“Well perhaps now that Africa is becoming Westernized and that means exporting the means necessary for developing sophisticated civilizations, over many years this will result in a very advanced bourgeoisie. The only problem that this theory has is that it has to compete with other more modernized civilizations.”
The local small and medium business people are largely undisturbed by foreign competition, the service sector as a whole is not affected by international competition. And governments can always impose trade barriers.
“But at the very least the middle classes will be better nourished and able to access high-quality nutrition.”
Not really, there are no organisms of control for food safety, they buy products that are made and stored in uncontrolled conditions just like people in the slums.
>We would still expect a concentration of high IQ genes there.
Well I don’t know about your specific example but there is some data to suggest that people living in cities and in particular rich, affluent cities are more intelligent than those who don’t.
>The local small and medium business people are largely undisturbed by foreign competition, the service sector as a whole is not affected by international competition. And governments can always impose trade barriers.
Well then it looks like Africa has the beginnings of a stable civilization with an upwards intellectual trend. Now it just has to prevent internal disintergration.
>Not really, there are no organisms of control for food safety, they buy products that are made and stored in uncontrolled conditions just like people in the slums.
One would expect they have some healthy traditional diets though. Perhaps these have been replaced as staples by less nutritious food.
“there is some data”
First time you mention some actual data, feel free to share.
“Well then it looks like Africa has the beginnings of a stable civilization with an upwards intellectual trend. Now it just has to prevent internal disintergration.”
There hasn’t been genetic change though. But mortality has shrunk, population has exploded. More people = more arms = more brains
“One would expect they have some healthy traditional diets though. Perhaps these have been replaced as staples by less nutritious food.”
Everyone, everywhere in the world can have a healthy diet if they want to, if they acknowledge the benefits of it and if they know what is an healthy diet, we’ll let alone food safety where governments don’t enforce strict standards.
if RR’s chart is true it must be that:
1. like those poor whites are hyper-motivated [or smarter than the average of their population] students that are not representative of their milieu. Whereas college application likely is universal among rich blacks.
OR
2. it’s partially genetic.
#1 can be ascertained. if, for example, 100% of rich blacks sit the test but only 25% of poor whites then RR’s chart is not dispositive.
all pretty lame guys. just speculation. is gypsy a traveller?
celibacy is a 20th century phenomenon
false. at least in victorian britain there was a lot more of it. the late 20th c phenomenon is tfrs < 2.
the IQ income correlation you cite is given without reference by jensen. it's not even clear that the pearson correlation is appropriate once the income data is normalized. peepee herself believes that in the contemporary US it's .35 iirc. and as lion has noted all of the correlation can be accounted for by educational attainment. no social statistic simply is…it will vary from one society to another and one time to another. for example, france is almost as rigidly stratified as the US. its father son income correlation is much higher than canada's.
this is not the age of meritocracy anymore than 18th c france. "merit" is an ambiguous term. all it can really mean is admission, hiring, and promotion based on uniform/standardized exams or objective performance like batting average. many countries are this way as far as uni admissions go. past that none. what is the successful entrepreneur’s merit? his business succeeded…”merit” thus defined is meaningless.
and the SAT is not subject to motivation at all afro. not anymore than other IQ tests. preparation does work for some, but those some are a tiny minority. rich black kids are much more likely to prep than poor whites as the rich blacks will be rich largely as a result of educational attainment.
so the poor whites prep more is impossible. but that they are a select population is possible.
I believe the IQ income correlation is about 0.49 if income is aggregated over many years and if the room & board of women working in the home is counted as income:
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/pumpkinperson.com/2016/02/11/the-incredible-correlation-between-iq-income/amp/?client=safari
and as lion has noted all of the correlation can be accounted for by educational attainment
Lion’s main dataset measured IQ using only a 10 word vocab test & measured income from a single year of self-reported salary. Using better (but older) data, Jensen claimed IQ predicted income independently of both education & occupation
>First time you mention some actual data, feel free to share.
http://www.citylab.com/work/2014/07/the-smartest-people-move-into-and-out-of-cities/373760/
It cites the work it’s talking about.
There is also a small jump in intelligence for the small amount of city dwellers who return to the country that is unexplained.
>There hasn’t been genetic change though. But mortality has shrunk, population has exploded. More people = more arms = more brains
One would assume that successful traders and so on in Africa were more intelligent than their milieu being as they are the ones to recognize and adapt to an opportunity and I’d explain at least part of the difference in intelligence to random mutations that will now be actively selected for now that the self-selecting conditions for genetic change have been established.
>all pretty lame guys. just speculation. is gypsy a traveller?
If the difference between ethnic groups is genetic there must be a self-selection effect at play explaining it. Or more likely many self-selection effects over an immense period of time that allow for the proliferation of those with small mutations that give them intellectual advantages over the general population.
It’s worth thinking about a Darwinian model that explains the above.
And no.
“Lion’s main dataset measured IQ using only a 10 word vocab test”
Wordsum?
The income figures are misleading, they only tell what the parent of the students are making by the time the students take the SAT. It doesn’t tell what has been the average family income from birth to college application nor where the students have lived all this time. So maybe a share of the “poor” white are not in fact poor but just have a momentary reduction in income due to unemployment, divorce, death of a parent and the “rich” black’s parents have attained the peak of their carrier after having spending most of their lives in intermediary positions. There is more about social status than just income.
Mugabe, you can’t say that the SAT is not affected by motivation, everything we do is affected by motivation. The quality of the comments we post here is affected by how much we care about having the last word in a discussion. Not everybody is willing to move to another city, attend high demanding classes, pay astronomical fees or separate from family and friends just to have a more prestigious degree.
“The Georgetown report finds that since 1995, more than 80 percent of all new enrollments by white students have come at the nation’s most “elite and competitive” 468 institutions.
By contrast, more than 70 percent of all new black and Hispanic students have enrolled at the nation’s “open-access two-year and four-year colleges,” a designation that includes community colleges and less-selective universities.
The number of whites attending those open-access schools has declined during the same period, the data show. In 1995, 69 percent of the enrollees at open-access colleges were white; the percentage dropped to 57 percent by 2009.
Even among the nation’s brightest students, skin color still plays a major role when picking a college, according to the report. More than 30 percent of black and Hispanic students with a high school grade-point average of 3.5 or higher attend a community college, compared to only 22 percent of whites with the same grades.
Those differences highlight the growing problem of “stratification” in American higher education, according to Jennifer Engle, vice president for policy research at the Institute for Higher Education Policy.
“When you look at the trend lines, you see increasing numbers of low-income students gaining access to higher education, but they’re increasingly stratified to community colleges, two-year institutions, and for-profit and online education,” she said Monday.
The problem has its roots, in part, in America’s high schools, particularly those populated mainly by low-income students.
“At the end of the day, if our big-city schools are not producing the kinds of educational outcomes that we should absolutely demand of them, then you will end up with the effect of poverty, racial disparities and unfair ethnic treatment manifesting themselves at the college level,” Mr. Nassirian said.
While the complex problem of education inequality in American high schools clearly is part of the problem, other, simpler issues also play a part.
Wealthier students — or their parents — can afford to apply to multiple colleges, with application costs that sometimes approach $100.
Generally, the more prestigious the institution, the higher the application fee.
Stanford University, for example, is the highest in the nation at $90, according to a 2012 analysis by U.S. News and World Report.
“Low-income students, in general, frequently will apply to only one school. In some ways they’re self-selecting out” of more prestigious, expensive schools and only trying for “safe” schools, Ms. Engle said.
For black and Hispanic students, the Georgetown report shows that, if they’re applying to just one school, it’s much more likely it’ll be an affordable community college, rather than the Stanfords and Harvards of the world.
Those less-expensive institutions play an important role in the U.S. higher education system, but attending one by no means guarantees a student will get a degree.
Just 12 percent of students who start at a community college, for example, go on to earn a bachelor’s degree within six years, according to data from the Institute for Higher Education Policy.
afro is right. the $400k as the 1% in household income is not for recurring income.
1. median household income in the richest part of the upper east side is < $300k according to the census.
2. iirc, 11% of households will at some point be in the 1%, but only 6% for 2 years in a row. http://www.businessinsider.com/1-in-9-americans-will-become-part-of-the-1–but-theres-a-catch-2015-2
although the income vs class distinction is seldom made in the US. an example of how important this distinction can be: there was a study on french adoptees, some of whom were described as having middle/upper class biological parents. tony blair's father is said to have been given up by middle class parents and adopted by proles. in the US such stories are a contradiction in terms.
and btw it seems that stagnation of median wages and inflation in the income of the rich does lead to asset price inflation. is this damaging to an economy? maybe not.
so for that data to be meaningful it would have to be for recurring income. if a black family sells its house in the year its kid sits the SAT…not a meaningful income figure.
of course motivation is important. my point was it’s not any more important for the SAT than for an “official” IQ test.
in which case the SAT vs official IQ test correlation, supposing it holds for blacks too, doesn’t say much…no test can say much about differences in ability…ability is basically not measurable.
but if for some odd reason blacks are everywhere and every-when un-motivated, this is significant.
“and btw it seems that stagnation of median wages and inflation in the income of the rich does lead to asset price inflation. is this damaging to an economy? maybe not.”
It surely fuels speculative bubbles, that can create growth when it leads to a construction boom for instance. If demand is focused on financial assets and investors make great use of leverage, that’s very risky. Central banks need to tighten their monetary policy in these times.
“of course motivation is important. my point was it’s not any more important for the SAT than for an “official” IQ test.”
I think it is, when it comes to the SAT, it appears that students are not all playing in the same league with hyper-motivated students targeting top colleges while others have more modest ambitions. In addition to that, affirmative action might even lower black commitment to the task since they know that they will have priority in college admission and that SAT results are not good predictors of college success.
I think it is, when it comes to the SAT, it appears that students are not all playing in the same league with hyper-motivated students targeting top colleges while others have more modest ambitions. In addition to that, affirmative action might even lower black commitment to the task since they know that they will have priority in college admission and that SAT results are not good predictors of college success.
I agree. Also the SAT is a very long and boring test so you have to be especially motivated to stay engaged through the entire thing (it’s not like the Wechsler which is full of fun tasks like playing with blocks, cartoon pictures, and jig-saw puzzles and where the examiner makes sure you’re trying, and moves to another subtest as soon as things get too difficult). And more motivated students would have studied more math and reading throughout high school which would indirectly prepare them for the SAT.
What I understand is who is actually complaining about the gap in SAT scores ?
It can’t be the blacks and the Hispanics since they get to better colleges with lower scores.
It can’t be the whites and Asians either since they have the best results and go to the best colleges
So who actually cares ?
“Using 15 years of data on Finnish twins, we find that 24% (54%) of the variance of
women’s (men’s) lifetime income is due to genetic factors and that the contribution of the shared environment is negligible. We link these figures to policy by showing that
controlling for education reduces the variance share of genetics by 5-8 percentage points; by demonstrating that income uncertainty has a genetic component half the size of its variance share in lifetime income; and by exploring how the genetic heritability of lifetime income is related to the macroeconomic environment, as measured by GDP growth and
the Gini-coefficient of income inequality. ”
Click to access HECER_DP364.pdf
i don’t know what that means.
it appears to be saying that MZTs are highly correlated for income and DZTs are not and that educational attainment explains little of the income variance. which means that even when MZTs differ greatly in education they end up with the same lifetime income?
so afro believes:
1. IQ/income difference in the races are not explained by genes,
BUT
2. differences within races are.
if that’s right, it seems odd even for finland.
given how education deliberately selects for IQ…it must be that (in finland) there are heritable factors other than IQ which are even more important in determining life time earnings.
btw, i agree with langan…who was living in a shack next to a garbage dump when he said it…
if you’re very intent on earning a lot, IQ is going to help you…a lot.
but if you’re not…it won’t.
if you’re very intent on earning a lot, IQ is going to help you…a lot.
but if you’re not…it won’t.
But in theory, IQ should make you intend to earn a lot. What’s better than retiring at 25?
>no test can say much about differences in ability…ability is basically not measurable.
All tests are a proxy to some degree or another, but if you can’t distinguish the effect to which they are, they’re almost useless as empirical data and form only the basis of probabilistic heuristics.
>but if for some odd reason blacks are everywhere and every-when un-motivated, this is significant.
What both me an Afro and you see is a difference in IQ and academic data, and from that we make assumptions based on further analysis and supporting data of that further analysis as to what explains it.
You can explain it in terms of genetics and the people in question and their potential to solve problems.
Or you can explain it in terms of circumstances. Motivation, nutrition, sociological factors.
In reality the results may be mixed but we are trying to ascertain to what degree one is true over the other and whether the former has validity thus showing an increased genetic IQ of some degree of one race over the other. That’s the tricky part.
For me what informs my tentative hypothesis is that if we can be genetically different and it affect us phenotypically in terms of all sorts of other things, why not intellectually? It would seem plausible that the development of civilization self-selects for intelligence and that that over time would have a statistically significant impact on the IQ of any given population; a genetic explanation would also explain a large part of the gap in intelligence by itself and why we don’t see many instances of well-nourished blacks with IQ’s as high as or exceeding whites.
i have to scroll up for a kalpa just to post.
gay!
if all the smartest had as their over-riding ambition to retire at 25…
no science. no medicine.
i’ll read the article, but…
the comparison is…
1. a deliberate selection for IQ, educational attainment…
vs
2. a non-deliberate selection for IQ, income…(was that earned income only? btw.)
which is NOT to say that a rich hs drop out would score lower on an IQ test than a poor PhD…
well…
not always…
but…yeah…if i were betting…i’d bet on it.
>But in theory, IQ should make you intend to earn a lot. What’s better than retiring at 25?
That’s no business of yours PP. What people want out of life and feel is fulfilling is completely up to them.
Langan is profoundly gifted by any ability test he’s taken, and is most fulfilled living on a ranch.
People are subsumed by their interests, life, distractions, circumstances, and so on and so forth forming a complete statistical cacophany through which one can only making loose correlations between IQ and any given results.
“1. IQ/income difference in the races are not explained by genes,
BUT
2. differences within races are.”
Yes, look at that:
But what I wanted to show is that the low to moderate habitability of income, especially for women made it difficult for natural selection to select for IQ through income and SES.
Ahah ! Is it your killer rebuttal or just a joke ?
“In the Minnesota study, the proportion of IQ variance associated with pre-adoption variables declined from .32 to .13 between ages 7 and 17. WIKI”
Then wiki must be wrong
“Notice the assumption though that Afro makes without being checked – all the black kids had uniformly bad environments pre adoption.”
Oh, it’s not just me, it’s PP and the authors themselves, look above:
“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."
"Finally note Table 3…biological mothers race is the strongest individual variable for T1 and T2 IQs, and has the added benefit of being p<0.001 (very strong), but the r is not quite robust, even for social science. Still useful result here."
Oh yes, and what about biological father's race ? Aren't black fathers supposed to pass on their low IQ genes to their children too ?
"Yes but still less than whites even with the greater welfare state."
We were talking education, not welfare use to begin with. In this domain, blacks, especially Africans do better than whites in the UK.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2009/dec/15/gcse-statistics-free-school-meals-race-local-authorities-poverty
"yet we see no significant closure of the gap from the late 70s."
Well, school segregation has come back to its pre-civil rights era levels
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/report-school-segregation-is-back-60-years-after-brown/
" If Rushton didn't explicitly say IQ was not K selected, I'm telling you it is. He did say large body size is R selected for physical aggression and survival."
Rushton, as a lower rank psychologist has no authority whatsoever at discussing biology.
"You don't like my crackerjack deductive approach but just talk to an African."
Man, I talked to lots of Africans, I went there multiple time on volunteering missions and on holidays.
"Its a lot less impressive than Middle Eastern, Asian and Meso-American history."
What more would you expect from an underpopulated tropical disease-ridden place ?
"Nutrition for Asians and Hispanics at low income levels is not much different to blacks."
Are they affected to the same extent as blacks ? No.
"Yes white brain drain. The people I went to school with."
Alright, now I understand why you're so angry.
"I'm not trying to write a textbook everytime I comment, like now."
Nothing impressive though…
" If Afrosapiens is setting up a tech firm and hedge fund, he ain't go to be looking at the University of Kinshasa for hires"
Ironically, I've invested in a Nigerian venture capital fund for start-ups earlier this year.
Now, I'm waiting for the second part of your killer rebuttal.
No, its not wrong, read the paper further. They have an aggregated empirics discussion of the of those pecuniary factors.
Not going to bother reading the rest of your comment as you’re being purposefully obtuse.
Please read my exposition on Note 2 below for further technical guidance.
If still in doubt, please dial 999.
Now, will you bother doing such a meticulous analysis of the two studies that show the blacks scoring higher than the white/mixed race kids ?
philosturbator has no mole like aaron neville.
the trump and the anti-HBD theme song?
they’re the same!
(2) <<>>>
For my purposes I’m not bothered about the black kids per se, but the mixed race kids and asians as vectors as well. I would hypothesise the environmental effect would be less for the latter (in this case an overall decline of IQs more softer from T1 to T2). Let’s look at midpoints in the ranges ‘quasi medians’, rather than averages (seeing as the samples are quite small, particularly for asians):
Early adopted blacks: -12
White adopted: -6.5
Asians: -4.5
Mixed Race: -13.5
Now a mixed picture somewhat. For example, I’d argue the white mothers of the mixies were lower IQ, particularly in 1976 when getting impregnated by a black man probably put you in the bottom quintile of whites. That is not a slur by the way.
But
“As in our original study, we compared the follow-up IQ performance of adoptees
with two black biological parents (black/black group) with that of adoptees
having one white and one black biological parent (black/white group). As in the
IQ results at Time 1, adoptees with one black and one white biological parent
showed higher Time 2 IQ performance than adoptees with two black biological
parents, t(74) = 3.26, p = .002, d = .84, as well as a nonsignificant tendency
toward greater IQ decline, t(74) = 1.62, p = . 110, d = .42. ” (p9)
I.e Mixed race white/black still had higher IQs > black only post adoption. We could be here all day trying to figure out why the decline was stronger though in mixies. Perhaps for my reason above. I don’t know.
Finally note Table 3…biological mothers race is the strongest individual variable for T1 and T2 IQs, and has the added benefit of being p<0.001 (very strong), but the r is not quite robust, even for social science. Still useful result here.
Let’s look at midpoints…
let’s not.
jabber jabber jabber…
there are ways to do these studies in a definitive way…
but psychology phds are too fucking retarded to know what they are…
so the argument never ends.
Actually even rubbish methodology on studies can often be surmounted by pure replications.
But they never replicate something that will get closer to dispelling the illusion. You have to consider their point of view Robert.
They walk up to a heavily jewish influenced/jewish composed social psych funding panel (which Jon Haidt has demonstrated leans 97% liberal) and make the case they want to do a nature/nurture study of magical negroes.
That’s a hard sell.
Academics aren’t known for sales ability!
Well the study is conclusive if you look at the numbers (and their confidence levels) that biology and race matter – asians, whites adoptees ‘suffered’ less from the environment. Biological race of mother had the highest r, lowest p.
A more general complaint is that there are not enough of these studies in different places, in the same place, at different longitudes, samples and in other countries. So the external validity is questionable, not internal.
Afrosapiens can logically sandbag me on that.
And that’s why we go back to meta logic. And not ant crawling his preferred studies.
That goes back to the politics of it all above.
“Well the study is conclusive if you look at the numbers (and their confidence levels) that biology and race matter – asians, whites adoptees ‘suffered’ less from the environment. Biological race of mother had the highest r, lowest p.”
This one unreplicated and multiple times contradicted study says:
-biological mother’s education and race together explained 16% of the variance in time 2 IQ. What about biological father’s race ? Apparently not significant enough to be mentioned.
-The adoptive variables as a group accounted for 17% of the variables in time 2 IQ,
“It may be instructive to consider the pattern of findings that would be expected
if genetic background but not social environment contributed to the average
follow-up IQ of black/interracial adoptees.
First, we would expect them to show greater IQ decline than biological offspring, because their Time 2 IQ would regress back to their biological, but not their adoptive, parents’ IQ levels.
Second, we would expect their Time 2 IQ to be correlated with their biological
parents’ education but not their adoptive parents’ education or IQ.
Third, we would not expect their Time 2 IQ to be correlated with adoptive experiences such as age at placement and time in adoptive home.
The data did not support these hypotheses, thus suggesting the important role of social environment in adoptees follow-up IQ.”
Click to access minnesota-transracial-adoption-study.pdf
“-The adoptive variables* as a group accounted for 17% of the variables in time 2 IQ,”
variance.
This wasn’t published in (2) above for some technical issue.
This is the last time I will ever do an autist crawl for a blog thread. I’m going to do the laundry, cut toenails and my online banking.
Please never ever, just reading these is cringy and painful.
The process of making them must be like telling a German joke i.e. no laughing matter.
joke warfare is no laughing matter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_unppqZFes4
that girl with the injun eyes…she’s got me pegged…
https://youtube.com/watch?v=d1oxvN7u-LQ%3Fstart%3D550
tossed salad and scrambled eggs.
Alain Delon is too pretty. I don’t find him attractive….
Henry Cavil and the young Ben Affleck are what GOAT attractiveness looks like on men
Santo do you think your spatial deficiencies have something to do with you homosexuality? I once read an article that said that gay men’s brains are wired like female brains.
I’m very spatially challenged but I’m a girl so it’s not that big of a deal. It’s still embarrassing. Unlike you, I’ve always been good at math though.
”Santo do you think your spatial deficiencies have something to do with you homosexuality? I once read an article that said that gay men’s brains are wired like female brains.”
Yes, specially because i’m theoretically good at mentalistic skills, maybe this advantage dragged part of my cognitive intelligence. But i’m not the classical homossexual, usually on the bottom, because while they tend to be quite feminine in some aspect, i’m not homogeneously equal. I have tons of ”masculinity” and ”feminility”, a mixed-gender brain.
”I’m very spatially challenged but I’m a girl so it’s not that big of a deal.”
The same thing with some men, nothing wrong with that, the problem is not have a weakness, everyone have, the problem is never recognize it at the time.
”It’s still embarrassing. Unlike you, I’ve always been good at math though.”
I believe i have below average math skills, i’m normal to do math counts, to solve simple mathematical problems but i have clearly a mental block or mathematicophobia. I believe i have dyscalculia but by now i think i no have it, it’s not so bad. Other example of my lower math skills is that i’m not capable to do math counts mentally speaking. Of course very simple ones i can. I’m slow to pay back.
But there are plenty of higher spatially intelligent men, so this correlation is not so generalized, more particular.
Marsha is the embodiment of why “IQ fetishists” have a bad name.
She has no idea what the hell she is talking about yet calls anyone who disagrees with her “retards”.
Neoconservatism and the Charles Murray world view is over.
IQtards are having trouble “adapting”
marsha has the dimensions of a man…safe to assume she’s trans…a she-male.
Sorry for calling you a retard, but you fucked up.
I have a photographic memory so I recognize your attitude from arguments we’ve had here in the past.
As for the philosopher, maybe I’ve overestimated his IQ. Frankly everyone here is so many points below me that it’s hard to make distinctions from my bird’s eye view.
Chuck Schumer scored a perfect 1600 on the SAT. He doesn’t strike me as a genius and neither do you.
As I said I’m generally agnostic on people’s full scale IQs. My ranking above is purely on verbal. I don’t know what technique Marsha was using to get full scale scores.
I have a feeling its the same technique Mugabe was using a while ago, or Bipolar Girl or Don Cuckold….
They put their finger in their mouth.
Put it in the air.
And they compute the amount of time before the car comes as a derivative of the person’s IQ whose name is on the card in their pocket, before they get off the road.
ISSS MAGICAL!!!
What about me Masha 🙂
I know that on the Wais I got 113. PP thinks I’m 120. I once met a person in person with an IQ of 170 like you and they think I am 118. The reason I think I am so low is that I have Dystonia on the right side of my body. The dumb doctors don’t understand this because most of the time I keep it under control. But over the past week the right side of my brain has had a burning sensation. I blink really hard with my right eye. Trama lowers IQ. I think that is where it came from. I suppress my emotions all the time. That is why I seem to be autist to philosopher. My mom is like that though. She just stares at me because she doesn’t understand me. The IQ 170 person on the kurzweil forum said I was never taught to control my emotions. He said that the mentality of geniuses talking to normal people is like talking to a 6 year old about their favorite cartoon show. Most cartoons I saw made me cry. I don’t like being alone all the time. The people I know are mostly unable to self reflect. You can see self-reflection in the eyes. You can read a persons thoughts that way. You can see what they think of you. You can stand back from yourself and know what is going on. That is why I like Pumpkin Person. PP is kind person. PP really looks up to the Prometheus society. I know that the people I’ve met around 170 seem different than the people I have met who are around 140. I feel the difference. I know about 5 (170) that I have directly interacted with. They are nice people.
At the library, I found a comic book called “Highschool DxD”. When I read it it made me cry. I cried because the people in the comic book really care about each other. I know that people care about me to. When computers become conscious I hope that I might be able to be friends with it. I saw a person in a dream that I really want to meet her again.
”I know that on the Wais I got 113. PP thinks I’m 120. I once met a person in person with an IQ of 170 like you and they think I am 118. ”
IQ created the idea that there are ONLY
mono-litically speaking
smarter,
average smarter
average
avg less smarter
less smarter
ALL individuals have psychological and/or cognitive weaknesses and strenghts…
So ALL individuals will be
smarter for that
and
avg smarter for something
and
average for this
and
average less smarter for it
and
less smarter for that
Inside a only individual there is a bell curve, a set of capacity levels and obviously only-IQ don’t show for us the whole picture…
IQdiots can’t accept that it’s not all ”higher IQ” ones who will be smarter than everyone.
We are dealing with a more COMPLEX stuff, it’s not YES or NOT, it’s not 8 or 80, it’s not IQ measure/reflect perfectly intelligence, IQ explain everything, and it’s not: IQ don’t measure intelligence in any level.
It’s not ”multiple” [combination of] intelligences trumps IQ completely…
It’s not also IQ trumps ”multiple” intelligences…
Why so many smarter people can’t try to be more reasonable*
To understand certain piece you need start to the begining just like a detective, starting with little quantity of information and progressively increasing, just like put piece by piece to complete their puzzle, and all the time watching yourself to avoid incorrect cognitive prejudices.
Seems obvious that conservatives tend to be reasonably better to understand naturalistic knowledge and liberals/leftists tend to be reasonably better to understand moral knowledge, but because both are just partially correct their weaknesses/bad apples tend to contaminate their good apples inside fruit basket.
Again, and again,
humans are not just workers (what IQ tend to measure much better), full beings never are just workers, even ants.
Intelligence applied to the work (intelligence for what*) IQ measure considerably better, their potential, because we know other aspects obviously influence for better or not our performance in school (simulation of the adult world of work/job) and in the job.
illuminaticatblog: I sincerely hope things will get better for you. You’re a good person.
” I cried because the people in the comic book really care about each other. I know that people care about me to. When computers become conscious I hope that I might be able to be friends with it.”
The bigger problem of introverts
they are not unite, and during their first decades of their life they tend to avoid one each other,
many them are brainwashing to believe extroverts are the coolest, they are not, on avg, of course.
Unfortunately we tend to learn later in life what is our type of people. This must be teached early by parents, relatives or any other kind people.
Your cry is a kind of thing could be avoided if people already knew that we, all the time, fit with similar pairs.
And forced socialization via useless school just hurt people, and it’s completely preventable.
https://youtu.be/RLD4evKDTW0
Autists like Illuminaticat have much higher affective empathy than those of us on the other side. Whereas we may be deemed to have ‘cognitive’ empathy and know what people think and feel in the abstraction. The Cat and I assume Santo, actually feel it.
http://evoandproud.blogspot.ie/2014/11/we-are-not-equally-empathic.html
Peter Frost in a non Jew controlled world, would be a world renowned scholar. Anthropology is another subject that has been neutered by sophistry unfortunately.
It’s not empathy. Illuminaticatblog is just sad because he’s lonely. I want to give him a hug. He’s the only real good person here.
“He’s the only real good person here.”
What about me.
http://www.sociotype.com/tests/result/est/199839
Your Sociotype: EII-0 FiNe (INFj)
Ethical Intuitive Introvert – The Empath
Illuminaticatblog – you’re so cute. Do you watch cartoons? Which ones?
@RR: yes you are but in a different way. You know, illuminaticatblog is “pure”.
I lost interest in cartoons in 2007.
Most of my time is spent on Youtube suggestions, forum’s and blogs.
A.I. is my favorite subject. I understand how it would work.
I am hoping to one day have a copy of myself.
http://www.whatbot.com/?p=241
https://youtu.be/JJj4allguoU
Keep smiling illuminaticat. Don’t cry. Things will get better. You’re smart enough to do most things in life. There’s no reason to give up or lose hope.
But i think Marsha is a recoverable IQtard, different than many of them who tend to be hopeless. And many of this hopeless IQtard are hard-core hbd’s.
She have showed great precision in your description of commenters here with some possible adjusts or improvement, here or there, but it’s fine, nothing bad.
The fact you put in neocons with a HBD lite/libertarian lite guy like Murray belies your rank order just above Deal with Dildos.
You also placed Lion of the Blog with Mugabe.
And Celine Dion with Alan Turing
Alan Dulles with the Hamburglar.
You have poor category logic. The colours you’re using are vague and messy based on semblances of general knowledge seen in undiscerned context.
How’s the Magic Negro cuckoldry going by the way?
Philo,
Comment directed to the UNKNOWN COMMENTER
Why this face sooooo shy, huh*
Referring to Don Cuckold.
Ok, next time, do it in explicit way.
Is that why Ben Shapiro and Kruathammer love Charles Murray?
You may not know that you are a tool of the neocon elite, but it doesn’t change that you are.
Think of a Viennese diagram.
One circle is neocons like Kristol, Shapiro, Penor, Rahm Emmanuel, Schumer, Perle, Wolfowitz and the other Zionist jew foreign agents.
One circle is are alt right hbders and nationalists like Bannon, Le Pen, Buchanan, Coulter and so on.
Your acid test is often where people stand on the Iraq War. So you’re correct on Murray’s neocon foreign policy view.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2003/02/roll_call.html
But he also wrote a book called the Bell Curve which breaks Zion’s Blank Slate embargo and usually argues for civil liberties and against mass surveillance (which exists for Zion) generally.
Ergo Murray is in the middle of the 2 circles.
But qualitatively much different from McCain and Shapiro.
Murray is an honorary Jew. He works for NEI. His latest book Coming Apart served Jewish interests but one needs a very high social IQ to understand how. It’s very subtle.
You’re making it more complicated than it has to be.
The general point is that Gentile Whites are “suckers” for the Jews with stuff like the Iraq war, etc.
Jews are 1-3% of the pop yet represent about half of Ivy League teachers, 35% of the forbes 400, 40% of Federal Reserve officers, etc.
Murray and (((Hernstein))) would theoretically justify that based on IQ.
the bottom line is the crucial point.
“Murray is an honorary Jew. He works for NEI. His latest book Coming Apart served Jewish interests but one needs a very high social IQ to understand how. It’s very subtle.”
PP I’ve debated /pol/tards on this. They say HBD is wrong because of that. Hilarious. But if what Torre saying is true, then Rushton, Lynn, Cochran, Hardy, Harpending, et al re honorary Jews. (Don’t even need to add Jared “Jews look white to me” Taylor to that).
Don Ciccio,
These data strongly suggest that Jewish overrepresentation at elite universities has nothing to do with IQ but with discrimination against non-Jewish White Americans, especially those from the working class or with rural origins. It would be interesting to see the dynamics of the admissions process. How many admissions officers are Jewish? And, whether or not they are Jewish,what pressures are they under to admit Jewish students? The brouhaha that engulfed the Princeton campus because Jews were “only” overrepresented by around 6.5 times their percentage of the population suggests that there is considerable pressure for high levels of Jewish admission. The Daily Princetonian ran four front-page articles on the topic, and the New York Times ran an article titled “The Princeton Puzzle.” (See here; the original NYTimes article is here.) Clearly anything less than 20% Jewish enrollment would be met with raised eyebrows and perhaps intimations of anti-Semitism.
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2010/07/kevin-macdonald-jewish-overrepresentation-at-elite-universities-explained/
David Duke has also said something about this.
http://davidduke.com/jewish-racist-discrimination-against-better-qualified-students-at-harvard/
These pieces explain Jewish over representation.
PP I’ve debated /pol/tards on this. They say HBD is wrong because of that. Hilarious. But if what Torre saying is true, then Rushton, Lynn, Cochran, Hardy, Harpending, et al re honorary Jews. (Don’t even need to add Jared “Jews look white to me” Taylor to that).
I would not be surprised if the Pioneer Fund had significant Jewish funding. I suspect they fund both the HBDers and the HBD deniers.
No,
Zion’s strategy is not to openly promote the idea of human biodiversity. The kinds of ideas that led to the Holocaust in the extremis. That’s fairly obvious from mass media, Hollywood movies and jewish academic ideologies.
The reason the Blank Slate is so important and crucial to maintain is not to prove the blacks are intellectually inferior to whites, but in fact to conceal that jews are intellectually superior to whites and stave off pogroms and redistribution.
”Zion’s strategy is not to openly promote the idea of human biodiversity.”
Seems not, they want to promote this idea only for themselves and to promote the exactly opposite to their enemies.
I’m 5’2″ and 105 lbs. According to Philosturbator, I’m fat.
Is Philosturbator human or satan? He’s evil. Apparently, just by looking at my eyes, he knows I’m fat and bipolar and unpopular and a “sperm urinal” and ugly. Just by looking at my eyes. Is this another example of philosturbator’s schizophrenia?
AESTHETICS DONT LIE
Except all you are my eyes. Serious question: are you retarded?
I’m a lot smarter than you in every way. I just don’t show it off. Idgaf.