[PLEASE PLACE ALL OFF-TOPIC COMMENTS HERE. THEY WILL NOT BE POSTED IN THIS THREAD]
Been watching Netflix’s fantastic series Dear White People which depicts racial tensions at a fictional Ivy League college. Although the show is trying to portray the black characters as super smart, in a weird way it’s causing me to believe more in Rushton’s theory and I think it’s because all the black male actors on the show have small heads (or maybe the fact that the sides of their head are shaved causes their heads to appear small compared to their white counterparts).
Blacks & the police
One especially poignant episode occurred when the police crashed a house party and pulled a gun on a small headed but super smart black guy. The black guy was not a nerd and does extremely well with the ladies, but his extremely high IQ was revealed by him dominating a tipsy trivia contest. What should have been a great night for him turned dark when he told the white character who was throwing the party not to say the N word, even though it was part of the lyrics to a song by a black artist that the black students were singing along to.
This led to the high IQ black getting upset and part of the racism the show was depicting was that a black guy can’t even get upset without some white panicking and calling the cops, who humiliated the black guy by demanding he show his school ID card to prove he was a student (something the white boys he was fighting did not have to do, even though they were much less qualified to attend the school from an IQ perspective).
And yes I realize shows like this are largely propaganda (or brainwashing as Philosopher would say), but it’s well written nonetheless.
Light skinned privilege
Another interesting subplot is the tension between a light skinned black girl (who wears her hair natural and is politically radical) and her dark skinned friend (who straightens her hair and acts like a white sorority girl). I’ve long noticed that a lot of the most liberal (pro-black) blacks tend to be light skinned, and I’ve wondered if this was because of higher IQ (which is correlated with liberalism) or because they’re trying to prove their blackness. But the show raised a third possibility: light skinned privilege. They have the luxury of being politically provocative because they’re less threatening to whites.
Many whites scoff at the idea of white privilege and Steve Sailer has gone as far as to suggest that being black is an advantage in 21st century America. It’s easy to see why Steve would think this when so many of the most powerful Americans are black (Oprah, Obama, Colin Powell, Condi Rice). But a closer examination reveals something more interesting: with the exception of the dark skinned Oprah, all of these powerful black Americans are at least half white on the genetic level. I suspect that if you separate light skinned blacks from regular blacks, there’s no net advantage to being black in America. Yes blacks are more likely to get good jobs (controlling for IQ) but they’re more likely to be unemployed, in jail and in poverty (controlling for IQ).
Whatever benefits come from affirmative action and tokenism are likely cancelled out by racism (yes, it still exists), so being black is a wash (neither good nor bad), unless you’re a light skinned black where you get the benefits of affirmative action without having to deal with much racism.
Race vs social class
This is not to deny that black Americans (both dark and light) are oppressed in America, but they are currently oppressed because of class, not because of race (though race is what historically caused their class). Descendants of slaves are the lowest social class in America because they were denied the ability to build financial and cultural capital for centuries.
Some blacks feel Obama was able to become the first black president because he enjoyed all the benefits of affirmative action, without the stigma of looking black or the cost of coming from America’s slave class (on the contrary, his pedigree was upper class)
Dear White People (Despacito Parody) ~ Rucka Rucka Ali – YouTube
YouTube · itsRucka
Joy-Ann Reed has a tough pro-black agenda and build-up her career on white bashing and reduction at racism. She looks quite black to me. She is not afro-american. Her parents were professors from Congo and Guaiana. She is as smart and more pushy as average famous TV anchor. She reminds me on Megyn Kelly except she has a racial agenda (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joy-Ann_Reid). She is married with a light-black african-american who is an elite sport journalist and producer.
On the contrary, Harris Faulkner, who is also quite black, but completely race-less minded and purely traditional conservative. She is an elite afro-american. She is maried to a jewish ashkenazim called Berlin. https://marriedwiki.com/article/newscaster-harris-faulkner-married-in-2003-and-her-husband-tony-berlin-married-life
It looks like among the black opinion leaders, the Harris Faulkner are the minority, and the Joy-Ann Reed the majority. And that it is the contrary for white elites, the Joy Behar are the majority, and the Ann Coulter the minority. That’s why society is going to be more multi-race, multi-cultural, more affirmative-action based in all corners of life, whether the majority of white likes it or not (Trump has already surrended with it’s omnibus bill on his populist agenda).
The name of Harris Faulkner program on Fox News is deeply amusing : Outnumbered. She leads a team of 4 female journalists who interview a male person. So the male is outnumbered. But the program is so a-gender oriented that it takes out all feminist content you could find in the outnumbered meaning. On top of that, the leader of the program is black Harris Faulkner, and all other three female journalist, are white. So she is the one who is outnumbered despite her lead role – she assumes it very well – and her being totally non-race oriented. So I would say “Outnumbered” is really a double anti-phrase, or a cool subversion of the concept of race and gender. Add the wedding to an ashkenazim journalist for her own channel, Fox news ….
You get Fox news in France?
Yes, but I don’t think people watch it .
For English, it’s sky news, bbc, and CNN. MSNBC and Fox are watched only by journalists .
“Been watching Netflix’s fantastic series”
“Although the show is trying to portray the black characters as super smart, in a weird way it’s causing me to believe more in Rushton’s theory”
Why? Even after all of my rebuttals on r/K?
Although you’ve written a lot of great articles, your rebuttals to r/K were not convincing because they defy common sense. There’s obviously a very clear trade-off in nature between reproductive output and intelligence. Humans are smarter than dogs who are smarter than snakes who are smarter than dandelions. Humans have fewer offspring than dogs who have fewer offspring than snakes who have fewer offspring than dandelions. This is just basic economics. The more expensive something is to produce, the fewer you produce: quality vs quantity.
“because they defy common sense”
Common sense > data and arguments?
Common sense is supported by data. There’s a clear negative correlation between an organism’s brain size and its reproductive output:
Now I’m not saying the selection models used to support r/K theory were all correct, but let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Still wrong. Rushton’s r/K doesn’t apply to human races because human races aren’t local populations. That’s the crux and that’s what Rushton gets wrong. See Judith Anderson and Joseph Graves.
But they consist of local populations and are largely descended from local populations
They consist of local populations, they are not local populations.
A better comparison would be, say, the Sami vs San. But then you have the same conundrum you’re in with CWT: you need to know how the environment was to explain how the proposed adaptation evolved. Rushton’s r/K selection theory is a just-so story too, it’s something that’s not empirically verifiable. These psychologists tell pretty good stories. They’d be better off writing children’s tales than trying to pass of their just-so stories as “science”.
Rushton’s theory is a just-so story.
It doesn’t matter if they’re local populations or not. Rushton’s making a generalization: this group of local populations is on average more K than that group of local populations
Similar to saying primates tend to be more K than reptiles
Still wrong. Rushton’s logic is horrible. His theory is the definition of a just-so story.
How Rushton put r/K to human races is wrong. That’s not how it works. No number of attempts to save his theory will save it.
Oprah is a genius said:
= PP cultural levels.
It’s just like a story based on Occidental Observer blog but adapted/i mean, mainstreamzed.
The Philosopher said:
I’d rather watch bestiality porn than watch this. Honestly.
PP, I think there’s a certain reality to liberals having higher average IQ on the whole, but what we’re talking about here is “University dumb” levels of intelligence. At a certain level of intelligence that seems to lie between 110-125 you’re just intelligent enough to wage war on your common sense and question the objectivity of reality as its being presented to you, at this stage of intelligence you slip into a solipsistic almost arcane level of abstraction using narratives that completely dismiss Ockham’s razor to explain phenomena you and I would find ordinary. For instance the conspiracy theory of “Privilege” to explain black underperformance.
After 130-ish you start to begin to see reality as it is, and if you’re a weasel you exploit the “Unviersity Dumb” and become a thought-leader in their movements, if you’re principled you start veering to what most would consider conservatism.
The Philosopher said:
100% spot on.
Agree, I call that the delusional range. Just smart enough to think about abstract concepts, too dumb to filter them.
Anything below 110 is squirrel and rodent level intelligence, below 90 is literally mouth breathing retard with a glassy look in their eyes, not even conscious, wouldn’t recognize themselves in a mirror.
110 to 130 range is delusional 100% of the time, really hate people in this range.
130+ = normal people
140+ = smart people, no more delusions, tend to be very manipulative and non-communicative though, basically ‘players’ in the game
i guess in my opinion 140+ is weasels as gypsy described
The Philosopher said:
Nassim Taleb writes alot about what you guys are talking about. He calls them ‘intellectual yet idiots’.
I am University dumb but I am very perceptive, I can understand high-level concepts, I am just slow at completing tasks. I can see patterns and connections that most cannot. I just lack stability and mental clarity to research. I feel fuzzy and find it hard to read books I could read 400 page books in high school. I notice how 125 are how 135 are how 145 are. The information clarity and patterns they put together tells me. People at 170 the difference between them and 145 is speed and just the instantaneous production of ideas, the other levels have speeds but 170 is simply superconductive in thought. resistance is completely gone in mental manipulation.
I believe my crystallized intelligence has changed how my fluid intelligence work so that my capacity to make inferences is becoming more intuitive in a general way. Expertise allows intuitive leaps from the completely filled in the knowledge of an area with new ideas in the subject area. You see the gaps the more you know. My general ability is simply reading allot and generalizing cross-contextual knowledge application. So even though I my be dumb fluid intelligence, I have mental tools that span domain expertise to create ideas. I understand what IQ level a person is because I have crystallized intelligence of knowing levels of complexity. I am not so dumb I do not understand I have genius level crystallized intelligence. Just I am dumb fluid intelligence. I am slow. The wais says I am 113 but look what I wrote, is the 113? I have domain-general knowledge. I work on it all the time where my speed does not stop me. I read and think a lot. I wish my brain could calculate faster but crystalize is about all I have and I spend all my time organizing it to gain the most from it as a data analytics process of the thousands of thoughts I have. (understanding the fluid intelligence of people above 145 being one such analysis)
Liberalism is correlated with IQ but more research is needed to determine whether IQ actually causes liberalism or whether IQ simply causes education and universities train you to be liberal. It depends how you define liberalism, and only some forms of liberalism are promoted by the media (i.e. pro-immigration, pro-black, pro-gay) while other forms are discouraged (pro-working class whites, anti-wall street, anti-neocon) but I suspect high IQ is correlated with consistent liberalism all the way up to the highest IQ, and it’s probably because high IQ people can think more critically about structural inequality and their own genetic and financial interests, have more abstract goals like justice, and are less psychopathic and more open-minded
But sure, if you define liberal as political correctness or just voting Democrat, then I agree with you. I define liberal as being on the side of those with less power.
The Philosopher said:
I think its something like Fenoopy describes. But not because above average people are gullible, but because they a re forced into an assembly line created by (((Master))) to prey on their high empathy and brainwash them on their emotional weaknesses.
Its a fact that younger people are liberal precsiely because they are less mature. Not because theyre dumber.
Pumpkin, what about the claim that only those above 130 have the psychological capability to make correct judgments about the world?
Bellow 130 critical thinking is severely diminished and incorrect conclusions abound.
Like me and my 113 IQ (lol)
I see detachment as a personality trait so I think that I can be objective just from my willingness to always reassess a flaw in my assessments.
(remember the person that keeps saying: computers only follow rules, they can never think) He is like IQ 125 and I feel like exploding what the fuck, he is smart, why he does not get feedback loops nesting and control theory I tell him all the time. Why he does not get that intelligence is pointing inward and simulations of physics could do this.
Personality like how philosopher says I have the kitty autisms more important to science and stuff (detachment, objectivity, self-examination) than IQ.
I have low IQ but I self-examine unlike high IQ people I know that are stupid I guess because they are blind to reality. I had a hard time with one guy saying IQ tests are circular reasoning because the tests define themselves are measuring intelligence and is apriori (an axiom that must be accepted on faith). I told him that if that were true them no psychiatrization would use the test because only retarded people would use a test based on faith-based axioms. Retards would use tests that defined themselves as measuring intelligence because intelligence is by definition what they measure. My argument to him was that psychiatrization are not retarded therefore the would not use an IQ test based on circular reasoning. They base it on empirical evidence and on the capacity for the mind to handle and manipulate information measured by tests that are rigorously tested to best measure capacity.
computers cannot think
IQ tests are circular reasoning
Why can people IQ 125 think such stupid thought?
Personality is what.
My IQ is 113 but somehow I understand what the high IQ people think is crap.
What does that say about IQ and self-examination?
Philosopher back at it again with Nietzche for the modern age.
Applied Nietzchean Philosophy realizes that the Master is (((Master)))
basically you can tell a 130+ he is wrong but it’s impossible to tell a 120+ he’s wrong
What’s your IQ ?
Intelligence can be used to rationalize belief systems that have no basis in reality.
The more intelligent you are the more you can bullshit yourself and others.
Two people of the exact same intelligence.
One can be in perfect alinement with reality.
The other with complete alignment with bullshit.
Genius level IQ (145+) or bare minimum above average IQ (115)
My IQ is 89, which is proof the Berber average of 83 is inaccurate.
Why are you hiding behind sarcasm ?
I thought it was really funny. French have no sense of humor. I got 145+ [perfect score] in both online Raven tests provided by Mensa. They don’t test over that.
I got a 140 in the test Andy Warski and Jean-François Gariépy did because I ran out of time [it was only 25 minutes]. I spent too long double checking answers to avoid stupid mistakes, wasn’t used to the short time-frame given.
Fenoopy can you help me understand a question I have?
General intelligence is most associated with the connection between the frontal lobes and the parietal lobes. Executive functioning and spatial awareness respectively. language areas included in associate of (g) [coefficient]
My (g) is 130. Is this a substitute in any way for my low FSIQ?
What is high (g) good for?
Online tests are shit. You should take a real IQ with a psychologist.
I literally have no idea what you’re talking about, you probably have more knowledge on the subject than me.
lmao ill be damned if i pay mensa a single £ of my money, clowns and hacks
Now what’s your IQ?
Fenoopy just say you’d rather go to an astrologist, psychic or palm reader.
I can’t believe Liberals are truly smarter, all of their explanations violate Ockham’s razor and you’d have to be extraordinarily gullible to buy that they’re smarter.
I think that the “Liberals are smarter” meme has been deliberately injected into the discourse in order to exploit the naive into supporting ideas that violate Ockham’s razor. It’s a deliberate attempt to get you to stop listening to those instinctive alarm bells.
As for why conservatives on average have lower IQ’s, at an IQ of 90-100 you trust your common sense, your instinct, what a Philosopher would call your inductive reasoning, it takes a fair intelligence to rationalize the irrational.
Unless you define what you mean by liberal, this discussion is pointless.
I think it’s pretty clear what’s meant.
I won’t go through the rigmarole of defining my terms when your assumptions are probably right, excepting the special-case definitions you’ve made earlier to rationalize your belief that liberal IQ advantage is consistent up to the highest levels, your definition of “Liberal” in that sense is so far removed from the popular nomenclature that it could equally well apply to Libertarians, several variants of Conservatives and so on.
Like am I “Liberal” because I think that Keynes was largely right in his ideas? I think that by the most popular nomenclature almost everyone who posts here on this board, including you, is a Conservative either because we accept variants on Social conservatism as solutions for problems we see in society or because we accept a degree of biological determinism as you do.
I think it’s probably time to make your peace with the fact that in the eyes of most you’re a Conservative, dude. To a liberal you’re “Explaining away oppressive powerstructures with biological determinism” and that inherently means you’re “Defending those powerstructures” which means, by definition “You’re a Conservative”.
The Philosopher said:
Thats why you also see a lot of younger people are libertarians. They have this really naive view that if you stick a paper on the wall which reads ‘The Rules’ people are not going game it or conspire around it or cheat or lie.
I remember there was a dumb argument I used to hear that a comapny wouldnt make dangerous food/chemicals/pharma etc because if the customers died, theyd lose sales….hahahahaha. Tobacco industry: GOING STRONG 300 YEARS!!!!
(im highly amused by this because it’s left hands)
The Philosopher said:
I think theres evidence they are more creative.
Illuminati Cat’s observation that Raven’s depends on working memory is correct. The patterns themselves are extremely simple on their own. The hardest patterns require me to be considering 27 or so patterns at once. The easiest requires the test taker to consider only 1 pattern.