The following chart shows height and IQ as a function of race and gender (note: these are average differences and genius IQs and giant heights exist in all races and genders):

Table I
IQ stats were estimated here. Height stats for men and women were taken from tables 12 and 10 of this document respectively (Americans aged 20-39 in 2011-2014). Although height standard deviations were not reported, they can be calculated by multiplying the standard errors by the sample size.
In the below chart I estimate the average IQ of each race, sex, height combination.
Average IQ by height for 6 U.S. demographics (excluding pathological conditions causing extreme height)
height | iq of young white men | iq of young white women | iq of young black men | iq of young black women | iq of young asian men | iq of young asian women |
6’7″ | 113 | 122 | 99 | 99 | 124 | 124 |
6’6″ | 112 | 120 | 97 | 98 | 122 | 123 |
6’5″ | 110 | 119 | 96 | 97 | 120 | 121 |
6’4″ | 109 | 117 | 94 | 96 | 119 | 120 |
6’3″ | 108 | 115 | 92 | 94 | 117 | 119 |
6’2″ | 106 | 114 | 91 | 93 | 115 | 117 |
6’1″ | 105 | 112 | 89 | 92 | 113 | 116 |
6’0″ | 104 | 111 | 88 | 91 | 112 | 115 |
5’11” | 102 | 109 | 86 | 90 | 110 | 113 |
5’10” | 101 | 107 | 84 | 89 | 108 | 112 |
5’9″ | 100 | 106 | 83 | 87 | 106 | 111 |
5’8″ | 98 | 104 | 81 | 86 | 105 | 109 |
5’7″ | 97 | 102 | 79 | 85 | 103 | 108 |
5’6″ | 96 | 101 | 78 | 84 | 101 | 107 |
5’5″ | 95 | 99 | 76 | 83 | 99 | 106 |
5’4″ | 93 | 97 | 74 | 82 | 98 | 104 |
5’3″ | 92 | 96 | 73 | 80 | 96 | 103 |
5’2″ | 91 | 94 | 71 | 79 | 94 | 102 |
5’1″ | 89 | 92 | 69 | 78 | 92 | 100 |
5’0″ | 88 | 91 | 68 | 77 | 91 | 99 |
4’11” | 87 | 89 | 66 | 76 | 89 | 98 |
4’10” | 85 | 88 | 65 | 75 | 87 | 96 |
4’9″ | 84 | 86 | 63 | 73 | 85 | 95 |
4’8″ | 82 | 84 | 61 | 72 | 84 | 94 |
4’7″ | 81 | 83 | 60 | 71 | 82 | 92 |
4’6″ | 80 | 81 | 58 | 70 | 80 | 91 |
The chart assumed a 0.244 correlation between IQ and height within sex and race, based on a massive study of of 76,111 young Danish men. IQs for each height were estimated by assuming that for every 1 standard deviation increase in height (within each race-sex demographic), IQ would increase by 0.244 SDs on average (each demographic’s SD were estimated in table I).
The chart suggests that on average a black man needs to be nearly two feet taller than an Asian woman in order to have a higher IQ, and that when black men and Asian women are the same height, the IQ gap approaches two standard deviations.
Sadly, this suggests black men will have an incredibly difficult time dating taller Asian women because the Asian woman will not only feel smarter and if she’s a racist, more evolved, but she’ll be disgusted that in the one area where the black man is supposed to be better (physicality), she surpasses him too, so her level of disrespect will be off the charts. If the shorter black man is well built, this might help him compensate, or it will make the problem worse given the extra IQ penalty of big muscles and because women may expect even more height from muscular men.
[redacted by pp, july 30, 2018]
the number in the elite is proportional to the population. the less social mobility the less competitive. therefore, the US, uk, and italy are the easiest places to gain elite status. [redacted by pp, july 30, 2018]
in countries with elite unis the elite is going always 85% their former graduates. these countries include the uk, france, the US, japan and the rest of east asian countries. the students at oxbridge and the grande ecoles and uni of tokyo have higher IQs than HYBS students because HYPS has extremely corrupt admissions. none of those other schools do.
[redacted by pp, july 30, 2018]
and not only are they corrupt. they weigh things other than test scores. not true of any other countries’ version of HYPS.
and this is what students who have attended both have told me. the students at imperial college london have higher IQs than the avg HYPS student, and imperial isn’t even oxbridge.
[redacted by pp, july 30, 2018]
that is less competitive in the sense of fewer competitors, easier for those born into the elite to remain in it, more difficult for those born outside it to get into it.
another factor which makes the american elite dumb is the US views introversion as a disability but 2/3ds of the gifted are introverts. so in japan or switzerland these people aren’t held back. in the US they are.
Good point. HYP admissions puts a lot of weight on “personal qualities,” which in practice means you get loudmouths like Gore and “folksy” people like Bush and not the kid who spends hours in his parents’ basement poring over computer code or writing short stories. Harvard’s own Steve Pinker (the famous neuroscientist) says that “it’s common knowledge that Harvard selects at most 10 percent (some say 5 percent) on the basis of academic merit.” Could be an exaggeration, but judging from those that do get into HYPS, it’s probably not far off. Of course, not all introverts have the academic chops, but it’s safe to say a lot of those who do, don’t stand a chance.
Surprised that the black male SD for height is so small and for IQ is so large.
As far as your last sentence, it helps to be muscular, but for most women, Schwarzenegger-levels of musculature is a turn-off. So building muscle may or may not help, I think.
“As far as your last sentence, it helps to be muscular, but for most women, Schwarzenegger-levels of musculature is a turn-off. So building muscle may or may not help, I think.”
99 percent of people who train won’t look like Arnold. Would you rather be skinny fat or have muscle and low body fat? With gymming comes confidence.
I admire ripped thin waist people. But for a “giant” like me, it’s better to be stocky like rugby players or American football.
I’m very ecto. My waist is thin and I have wide shoulders so I look bigger.
rr speaks the truth.
most men’s woman problems would disappear after 3 years of solid consistent training and diet planning.
HOWEVER…
pumpkin is RIGHT to the extent that there is a perception that brawny men are stupid, especially among the higher classes.
because the Asian woman will not only feel smarter and if she’s a racist, more evolved, but she’ll be disgusted that in the one area where the black man is supposed to be better (physicality), she surpasses him too, so her level of disrespect will be off the charts.
the reasoning here is wrong.
women do not care if a man is more or less intelligent, barring communication breakdowns.
all women care about is whether a man is powerful.
Rr you have the type I would have dreamed to have !
it isn’t. that stat is a lie. blacks have much smaller SD than whites.
No that stat comes from the Wechsler; the gold standard
it should be, if the african population has much more genetic variance than all other populations. it’s strange that it isn’t.
African’s have the most genetic variability because they are the oldest race, causing Rushton to consider them less evolved.
However genetic variability != phenotypic variability because much of the DNA doesn’t code for anything, which makes it ideal for serving as a genetic clock
A good example of this was provided by Cochran who noted that dogs are much more phenotypically variable than wolves, even though wolves (being the older population) are much more genetically variable.
Of course ceteris paribus, genetic variability = phenotypic variability, but when it comes to IQ, there doesn’t seem to be a clear pattern. In some data-sets blacks are more variable, other data-sets whites are. Too close to call.
the gold standard? that’s a joke.
[redacted by pp, July 30, 2018]
it’s well known that american blacks have a MUCH lower SD.
[redacted by pp, July 30, 2018]
it should be…
only if IQ is genetic which you’ve said it isn’t.
you must have checked black on your law school application.
only if IQ is genetic which you’ve said it isn’t.
….which would be another example of an ostensible inconsistency in the HBD paradigm.
you should work on giving people the benefit of the doubt. lord knows i give you plenty…
then why didn’t you say that?
lord knows…
your “lord” is the devil.
then why didn’t you say that?
because i’ve made the same point in more detail before…many times.
am i not allowed to ever adumbrate you GODDAMNED NAZI
if you had studied my intent, you’d understand.
As far as your last sentence, it helps to be muscular, but for most women, Schwarzenegger-levels of musculature is a turn-off.
lol no.
they say that, but have you ever known a psychologically normal huge jacked guy who didn’t get laid like crazy?
women like POWER.
of all types.
very few people have ever known a gorilla juice head swank.
swank’s theories:
1. judges should do whatever the talmud says.
2. women prefer midget bodybuilders to tall and thin men.
they aren’t theories…they’re how things are.
1) judges look for results first and justify later
2) “The shoulder-to-hip ratio, however, accounted for a much larger proportion of variance in attractiveness in our model (79.6%).” “Our study found no significant difference in the proportion of variance accounted for in our model by penis size and height (6.1% vs. 5.1%).”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3637716/
“Estimates of physical strength determined over 70% of men’s bodily attractiveness. Additional analyses showed that tallness and leanness were also favoured, and, along with estimates of physical strength, accounted for 80% of men’s bodily attractiveness. Contrary to popular theories of men’s physical attractiveness, there was no evidence of a nonlinear effect; the strongest men were the most attractive in all samples.”
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/284/1869/20171819#sec-1
i have the gift of seeing things for what they are.
you don’t.
few people do. Italians, mostly.
Thanks for the links swank. Good to know. =^)
Get training, weaklings.
Also the golden ratio is important for attractiveness. My ratio right now is 1.633, am currently cutting. Women are most attracted to a ratio where men’s shoulders are 1.6 times their waist. Again, get training, weaklings.
Loser^
Get training, Melo.
Get smarter, RR.
Get training, kid.
Smarts are largely influenced by genes so I have no hope of getting smarter, you should know I have low-IQ genes by now. I’m surely not as smart as carpenter Melo.
so sumo wrestlers are the world’s sexiest men.
got it.
“Get training, kid.”
I don’t need training.
I’m not sure what’s funnier, Someone less successful than me calling me “kid” or you pretending to be mentally mature.
“Smarts are largely influenced by genes so I have no hope of getting smarter, you should know I have low-IQ genes by now. I’m surely not as smart as carpenter Melo.”
So he finally admits it. That’s king meLo to you, peasant.
“Someone less successful than me calling me “kid””
How are you more successful than me, kid? You’re a kid because you’re younger than me, kid.
“So he finally admits it. That’s king meLo to you, peasant.”
Cringe.
“Take the Raven!!” “Sure If you pay for the test, my time off work and the travel costs” “lol do it yourself”
“You’re not an expert in anything!!” “sure. Let me know when you’re in the tri-state area.” “lol why would I go to that Italian shit hole?”
Gman “RR like logic so he should take X test.” “sure, pay for it, pay for my time off work and the travel” g man “*crickets crickets*”
Weird how people make dumb claims and then don’t back them up when I make the offer.
“I don’t need training.”
I hope you reconsider in the future.
“How are you more successful than me, kid?”
I make the same if not more money than you, and I’m not in debt. My money also stacks at an increasing rate overtime. My job is also not my only source of income.
“Cringe.”
The only cringey thing here is you.
“You’re a kid because you’re younger than me, kid.”
So If I was 50 and you were 60, you’d call me kid?
It’s obviously just a insult. Even your insults to me are just swagger jacked from other users. No creativity whatsoever.
“make dumb claims and then don’t back them up”
No, saying “evolution isn’t real” and “your mind is made of pixie dust not atoms!” are the real dumb claims. Are you going to back those claims up? Or at least address any criticism towards them? Of course not.
Which is why your stupidity is self evident to every user here. You’re the only one who doesn’t get the joke, because you’re the butt of it. You have the lowest known IQ on this blog, we don’t have to prove anything. You prove it everyday.
OK let’s get along everybody:
The last few paragraphs are like stand up comedy.
And you based the IQs on a danish study which is not relevant to other races. It might not even be relevant to other europeans. Since asians and often jews are on average much smaller than whites or blacks, has it never occured to you that height is not much correlated with IQ?
Think about the nerds you grew up with. How many of them were tall? Most of the ones I grew up with were actually smaller than average.
Nerds are often short but they’re also skinny. Skinniness predicts high IQ
Why?
“given the extra IQ penalty of big muscles”
What’s this mean?
There’s a negative correlation between IQ & weight/height ratio so muscular people score lower on IQ tests, on average
Why?
that is ridiculous. pumpkin, read between the lines. the weight/height thing is for FAT. not for extra weight from muscle.
fat people are dumb because they are too stupid to control their eating and/or cannot control their impulses to eat.
there is a positive correlation between attractiveness and IQ, muscular men are more attractive, therefore muscular people should score higher on IQ tests.
how to reconcile what you said and what I say?
what I just said.
Most people (like Swank) assume the negative correlation between weight/height ratio and IQ is because fat people are stupid.
But my hunch is that both fat and muscular people are stupid (on average) and both groups are responsible for the correlation.
As for muscular people being more attractive, that’s only from the neck-down. The positive correlation between IQ and attractiveness is from the neck-up iirc.
getting muscular and lean takes some level of smarts…much more than getting fat does. so i’m not sure what would make you think muscular people are in fact stupid. i think they are perceived as stupid because of the ‘dumb jock’ stereotype, but athletes are also IN FACT on average smarter.
and being muscular and lean makes one more attractive “from the neck-up.” so a group of shredded people will necessarily be on average more attractive than a group of regular people.
PP,
“But my hunch is that both fat and muscular people are stupid (on average) and both groups are responsible for the correlation.”
Where does this “hunch” come from, especially when exercise is outstanding for the brain?
Swank,
“getting muscular and lean takes some level of smarts…”
This. And when people see what you do for yourself, how you can transform your body in a month’s time and how strong you are then they’ll pay you for it.
Getting lean and muscular takes some level of smarts, sure. But what’s more important is consistency, consistency, consistency. If you’re not consistent then you’re spinning your wheels. If you’re not adding weight or reps you’re spinning your wheels. If you’re not gaining muscle or losing weight, you’re spinning your wheels.
This stereotype about bodybuilders and powerlifters etc being “dumb” has no basis in reality.
Also swank, for considerably overweight/obese people, their penis “shrinks” due to the fat but they can “gain it back” with weight loss. So that’s more motivation for them.
In my professional experience, fat people have no idea what to do, they don’t know how to structure a program and they don’t know how to diet correctly. It’s because of Big Food LIES!
Also swank we can continue our CICO discussion here as well.
My IQ is one foot taller than my actual height which is 113.
5’7″
It looks that like people are shortening now … it goes with theory of IQ diminution for milleniums .
In fact, the magnitude of the mean Black–White group difference in IQ for higher SES levels, when measured in standard deviations, is larger (Herrnstein & Murray,
1994, pp. 286 –289).
this is called the “magic negro effect” [redacted by pp, July 30, 2018]
No it’s called regression to the black mean
You don’t have the cognitive chops to comment here
Other blogs would be more suitable
[redacted by pp, july 30, 2018]she thinks the regressions are different for negros than for whites and yet this is not the magic negro effect.
it’s the definition of the magic negro effect.
This shows a serious conceptual problem on your part
Blacks having higher SES than whites of the same IQ = magic negro effect
Blacks having lower IQ than whites with the same SES = regression to the mean
I’m very concerned that you don’t have the genetic ability to think conceptually
You’re better at regurgitating information from memory. Leave the higher level thought to those of us who aced our WISCs
i think he’s saying that the different magnitudes of the gap in the children indicate that the black parent in question truly was a unique-one-of-a-kind…
no. not what i’m saying.
unlike peepee i know what i’m saying.
same regression means…
give me two random people. one white. one black. same status. now give me the conditional distribution of their IQs. IT’S THE SAME! THERE’S NOT A BLACK REGRESSION AND A WHITE REGRESSION UNLESS MAGIC NEGRO.
i doubt peepee even knows what she means but the only she could mean can be expressed with the following analogy.
suppose that a certain pro sport has no athletes below 5’7″ and never will due to the nature of the sport. and then suppose that there are two populations. one short. one tall. the one SHOULD expect that the members of the short population who make it to the big leagues in this sport are shorter on average than those from the tall population.
BUT at any specific height > 5’7″ within each population there is no difference in the likelihood a member of the short population or the tall will make it to the big leagues.
Let’s say the average man is 2 SD taller than the average woman, and let’s say height and basketball correlate 0.7. We’d expect ceteris paribus, men to be 2 SD(0.7) = 1.4 SD better at basketball than women.
Now let’s say to make the NBA, you must be +4 SD better at basketball than the average man, and thus +5.4 SD better than the average woman. We’d expect NBA worthy men to be +4SD(0.7) = +2.8 SD taller than the average man, and NBA worthy women to be +5.4(0.7) = +3.78 SD taller than the average woman. But since women are 2 SD shorter than men, +3.78 SD above the average woman is only +1.78 SD above the average man, so NBA worthy women would be much shorter than NBA worthy men.
MY IQ IS FIFTY POINTS ABOVE YOUR LEVEL!
peepee woman logic:
a basketball team from sardinia and a basketball team from iceland have players all with the same height. conclusion: the sardinian team will lose because sardinians are shorter than icelanders and height is correlated with ability at basketball.
No that’s not my logic. My logic is that if women were allowed to join the NBA, the fact that they were shorter than the male players would NOT prove they got affirmative action, because given the height gap between the sexes, and the imperfect correlation between height and basketball, even an NBA worthy woman should be shorter than NBA men.
On the other hand, if random 6’6″ women had a better chance of making the NBA than random 6’6″ men, that would be evidence for affirmative action or “majic female effect”
if random 6’6″ women had a better chance of making the NBA than random 6’6″ men, that would be evidence for affirmative action or “majic female effect”
AND THIS IS THE CASE FOR BLACKS AND WHITES OF A GIVEN IQ.
AND THIS IS THE CASE FOR BLACKS AND WHITES OF A GIVEN IQ
When it comes to occupation, yes, when it comes to wealth, hell no.
But that wasn’t your argument. Your argument was that blacks having lower IQ than whites of equal SES proves there’s a magic negro effect, and that argument is IDIOTIC, because even in cases where there’s discrimination against blacks, blacks still likely have lower IQs than whites of the same SES, and the reason is that race captures IQ variance not captured by SES.
To help Mug of Pee understand, who has a higher IQ on average? A Harvard Law grad worth $10 million or high school dropout worth $10 million?
If you answered the Harvard Law grad, does that prove society is discriminating against the Ivy League educated and there’s a magic high school dropout effect?
Get a brain, Jane!
You are reasoning refutation attempt has too many variable to achieve anything ….
So i just take your too examples. If you assume no team is selecting on height but that height is a result of the selection process, then it means that Sardinian have been selecting more, not less, than Icelanders (because Icelanders would be 1 sd under sardinian in height). If the other relevant factors correlate 0.5 with height, then the Sardinian team would be better, not worse, than the Icelandic one (all other things being equal). Just because selection intensity has been higher there despite a worse population .
That’s consistant with pp examples. And I believe it’s quite intuitive.
Pbs with French iPhone. Two examples. Icelander 1 sd above Sardinian in height.
for example, suppose you have 5,000 whites and 5,000 blacks and the correlation between IQ and status is 0.5. then you choose the status level as 1 for a normalized status. this can be simulated easily in excel. no one is going to be exactly 1 so you make it a band between 0.9 and 1.1. whites have mean IQ = 0, blacks -1. one example of the simulation gives 8 blacks and 102 whites at this level. the mean IQ scores are 2.000 and 1.978 respectively.
You’re very confused.
Here’s a real life example, not a simulation you mangled: People who weigh over 980 lbs
The average woman in this top weight class is much shorter than the average man at this weight class, analogous to the average black of high status having a lower IQ than the average white of high status.
By your low IQ logic this proves there’s a magic female effect, where weight scales add affirmative action pounds to women that they didn’t earn.
What’s actually happening is that people from different groups can have very different distributions on trait Y, even when they’re selected to be identical on trait X, because X imperfectly correlates with Y, and group membership itself predicts Y independently of X.
MY IQ IS FIFTY POINTS ABOVE YOUR LEVEL!
obviously i’m referring to expected status given IQ otherwise the figures of 2 and 1.98 make no sense.
i think i brought up these concepts earlier but didn’t articulate them so well in the other thread. go me.
same regression = same expected value irrespective of population distribution. THIS IS A MATHEMATICAL FACT.
same regression = same distribution of status given IQ for blacks and whites.
You’re a moron, Mug of Pee.
Yes, if you lump whites and blacks into a single scatter plot, the expected IQ for a given black is the same as the expected IQ for a given white at the same status, because in that analysis, status is the only independent variable.
But we’re not talking about a regression line going through 2-dimensional space, we’re talking about a plane going through 3-dimensional space, so because we have 3 dimensions, we’re not just predicting IQ from status, we’re predicting IQ from race and status, and since race predicts IQ independently of status, blacks and whites of the same status will not have the same IQ distribution, even without the magic negro effect.
you’re right that the average IQs of negroes at a given level will be lower.
you’re wrong that this difference varies with status. or it varies only a trivial amount. no amount of conceptualizing can get you to the answer. you have to crunch the numbers. that is, use your PIQ.
you’re wrong that the average IQs of individual negroes at a given level of expected status will be lower. this should be obvious. but the average IQs of negroes at a given broad range of expected status will be lower.
this is where speaking one language well rather than 9 languages poorly is superior.
Never said it would vary by status
YES YOU DID!
https://pumpkinperson.com/2018/07/30/iq-differences-in-height-by-race-sex/comment-page-1/#comment-99088
Oh i see.
But the part about larger as measured by SD was so ambiguous i ignored it (the SD of the social class or the general population? Do higher classes have smaller SDs?).
My main point was blacks having lower IQs than their white socioeconomic peers does not imply a majic negro effect. That was the crux of the debate.
incidentally, hugo black is one of the greatest SCOTUS justices.
another person who got it.
a “loose” strict constructionist who correctly surmised that, at the time of his appointment, this approach would bring about the results that he believed were fair.
in terms of practical effect, he was an activist as they come — incorporating the bill of rights. frankfurter (who also got it) CORRECTLY characterized him as an activist.
he got it. you don’t.
black was an original intent-er.
hugo black, raoul berger, the old ACLU, william crosskey, all early 20th c supremes, ellsworth, bork, meese, …
yeah, man…
…that’s why IN REALITY he CHANGED THE LAW more than perhaps any other SCOTUS justice of the 20th century.
and NO he was not an original intent-er. He was pretty much a strict constructionist — maybe a textualist on his most liberal day.
y’don’t get it, dude.
he was the original original intent-er.
go to law school already.
“As a Supreme Court justice, Black followed a “textualist” or “strict constructionist” approach to constitutional and statutory interpretation”
He was NOT an original intent-er.
Recognize that y’don’t get it, already.
you need to read the whole wiki swank.
scalia actually said in that interview that if a legislature told him, “that’s not what we meant” he would say, “too bad. that’s what it says.” that’s usurpation!
a problem is the term textualism and intent are used equivocally. textualism can mean:
1. only dictionaries may be used in interpreting laws. scalia-ists use dictionaries published in the year of promulgation.
2. the law cannot be interpreted to mean something it doesn’t say.
intent can mean:
1. what specific problem the legislators sought to remedy.
2. what the legislators meant by what they said.
3. something mysterious yet never defined by critics of original intent.
the only non-gay jurisprudence combines textualism in sense 2 and intent in both senses 1 and 2, with 1 being used as examples of 2.
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
i don’t need to…i actually get it. you don’t.
scalia actually said in that interview that if a legislature told him, “that’s not what we meant” he would say, “too bad. that’s what it says.” that’s usurpation!
Hugo Black would say the same thing…lol.
the only non-gay jurisprudence combines textualism in sense 2 and intent in both senses 1 and 2, with 1 being used as examples of 2.
lol….
(1) is (as I’ve ALREADY SAID) the mischief rule, or generally, a purposive approach, which is NOT NOT NOT original intent and definitely invites a high amount of judicial discretion, because the judge is supposed to consider the broad social, economic, etc. context of the law.
A Legal Affairs poll placed Amar among the top 20 contemporary US legal thinkers.
amar says black was an original intent-er. amar describes himself as such too.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2005/09/rethinking_originalism.html
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123699111292226669
apparently amar is like bork. at one time he’s for original public meaning and at another for original intent.
this guy gets it.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40041628?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
The textualist search for original public meaning cannot be squared with an interpretive approach that assumes that all word choices were made with a high degree of care, that the significance of location can be assessed simply by examining the four corners of the document, and that the Constitution must be understood holistically. Analysis of Professor Amar’s Bill of Rights indicates that, paradoxically, close reading is a poor guide to original meaning: rather, careful study of the drafting history is necessary to recapture any such understanding.
so here two types of original meaning are referred to.
1. original public meaning. the homosexual approach of scalia.
2. original meaning of the people who made the law. the heterosexual approach of black, crosskey, berger, an done presumes the four supremes who were also framers, etc.
original intent = missionary position penis and vagina
original public meaning = homosexual anal intercourse
living constitution = pedophilia
People say a lot of things….muggy.
That’s why reality is so important….and why you quoted Ed Meese.
Hugo Black, according to the wiki itself was a strict constructionist….
yet amar ridicules textualism just as i have.
As I see it, text without context is empty. Constitutional interpretation heedless of enactment history becomes a pun-game: The right to “bear arms” could mean no more than an entitlement to possess the stuffed forelimbs of grizzlies and Kodiaks. (And if history no longer constrains, why should spelling? Maybe the Second Amendment is about the right to “bare arms” and other body parts—e.g., nude dancing.)
so the bottom line is lawyers don’t know the difference between words and things and words and feelings.
if i ever tried a case against swank it would end with swank crying for his mommy in the fetal position.
Constitutional interpretation heedless of enactment history becomes a pun-game: The right to “bear arms” could mean no more than an entitlement to possess the stuffed forelimbs of grizzlies and Kodiaks.
He ripped that joke off from Family Guy which immolates his credibility.
No accident that you can’t ferret out stret cred…
The textualist will “look at the statutory structure and hear the words as they would sound in the mind of a skilled, objectively reasonable user of words.”[2] The textualist thus does not give weight to legislative history materials when attempting to ascertain the meaning of a text. Textualism is often erroneously conflated with originalism, and was advocated by United States Supreme Court Justices such as Hugo Black and Antonin Scalia
The bottom line is that non-laywers are confused about most everything related to the law.
just not as confused as lawyers.
pretty sure swank didn’t pass the cali state bar.
text without context is empty. —amar
Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind. —kant
challenge for swank. give me the case and i’ll give my view moral and legal. these will only coincide accidentally.
because WASP.
even though i’m NOT a WASP, i am a WASP in swank’s universe.
swank logic:
judges usurp all the time.
therefore,
they should usurp all the time.
is = ought for swank.
sad!
peepee is just a propagandist for chinese supremacism.
that’s fine.
but not admitting it isn’t fine.
not admitting it is chinky.
china people under the best conditions vs whites under the same conditions score LOWER.
PLUS
china people are…
1. uncreative
2. have no personality
3. dishonest.
yet the poverty of china is some great mystery? what a joke.
if china exceeds the west, it will only be because not infected with [redacted by pp, aug 2, 2018]
It shows their intelligence that they didn’t get infected. And China was one of the few location where civilization independently emerged. Europe was not.
last night i dreamt i saw swank crying…in pleasure…when his boyfriend was eating out his magina. i said, “why are you doing that in front of me?” swank said, “homophobe!”
why do you lie compulsively? have you asked your psychiatrist?
civilization DID arise independently in europe in FOUR locations.
1. the mouth of the danube
2. mainland greece
3. crete
4. italy
the indo-europeans were NOT civilized people.
the story that rome was founded by greeks as told in the aeneid is FALSE.
none of these civilizations were founded by sumerians or egyptians. let alone indus valley or china people.
STOP LYING!
Shut up you monkey!
Here’s what wikipedia says:
A traditional theory of the spread of civilization is that it began in the Fertile Crescent and spread out from there by influence.[13] Scholars more generally now believe that civilizations arose independently at several locations in both hemispheres. They have observed that sociocultural developments occurred along different timeframes. “Sedentary” and “nomadic” communities continued to interact considerably; they were not strictly divided among widely different cultural groups. The concept of a cradle of civilization has a focus where the inhabitants came to build cities, to create writing systems, to experiment in techniques for making pottery and using metals, to domesticate animals, and to develop complex social structures involving class systems.[4]
Current scholarship generally identifies five sites where civilization emerged independently:[6][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]
the Fertile Crescent
the Indo-Gangetic Plain
the North China Plain
the Central Andes
Mesoamerica
The free speech you know and love was formally put into law by the Warren court. …. ought.
You were dreaming of watching me get my salad tossed by a dude and somehow this is a diss to me….?
So….you’d be a justice who only does justice accidentally.
Congress passes a law stating that all criminals convicted of possessing marijuana are to be subject to life imprisonment unless they are less than 18 years of age and have been admitted to HYS.
An 18 year old. poor white who has just been admitted to a state school on a scholarship is before you. Does he go to prison for life?
notice peepee had to not post my map of early civilizations.
here it is again.
minoan civilization before china people civilization.
i am a monkey.
peepee is a donkey.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minoan_civilization
You can always find a few dissenting scholars who will say anything but the mainstream consensus is that none of the independent civilizations were in Europe.
And independent != ancient, though they’re correlated
what was even grosser about swank and his shaved headed boyfriend was they were both dressed in soccer referee uniforms.
i would sentence him to life in prison or i’d resign.
i would sentence him to life in prison or i’d resign.
you would either do evil or submit to cowardice when you have the personal power to do what you know is right? you wouldn’t even CHECK to see if the sentencing guidelines were consonant with the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment? failure — both legally and morally….so….
wrong answer, pussy, and that’s why you have no business even talking about the law.
read it…understand it…
The egalitarianism typical of human hunters and gatherers is never total, but is striking when viewed in an evolutionary context. One of humanity’s two closest primate relatives, chimpanzees, are anything but egalitarian, forming themselves into hierarchies that are often dominated by an alpha male. So great is the contrast with human hunter-gatherers that it is widely argued by palaeoanthropologists that resistance to being dominated was a key factor driving the evolutionary emergence of human consciousness, language, kinship and social organization.[14][15][16]
In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.”
By the 14th century it appears that Chancery was operating as a court, affording remedies for which the strict procedures of the common law worked injustice or provided no remedy to a deserving plaintiff. Chancellors often had theological and clerical training and were well versed in Roman law and canon law.
The trial of John Peter Zenger in 1735 was a seditious libel prosecution for Zenger’s publication of criticisms of the Governor of New York, William Cosby. Andrew Hamilton represented Zenger and argued that truth should be a defense to the crime of seditious libel, but the court rejected this argument. Hamilton persuaded the jury, however, to disregard the law and to acquit Zenger. The case is considered a victory for freedom of speech as well as a prime example of jury nullification. The case marked the beginning of a trend of greater acceptance and tolerance of free speech.
As a result of the jurisprudence of the Warren Court in the mid-to-late 20th century, the Court has moved towards a baseline default rule under which freedom of speech is generally presumed to be protected, unless a specific exception applies
You don’t get it because you have been conditioned NOT to get it.
“the Fertile Crescent
the Indo-Gangetic Plain
the North China Plain
the Central Andes
Mesoamerica”
This. Pretty much the independent invention of writing denotes whether one group of people created civilization independently. See:
http://chemsites.chem.rutgers.edu/~kyc/Five%20Original%20Writing%20Systems.html
I’m talking about every civ on this list, sans the Andes. Independently cresting writing is a necessary pre-condition for human civilization. Note how Europeans didn’t independently create a civilization (for any Nordicists passing by reading the blog).
(Don’t post other comment please, I messed up.)
the incorporation doctrine is widely considered to be contra original intent, FYI.
not by black or by crosskey.
the privileges and immunity clause of the 14th incorporates the bill of rights according to black, the original original intent-er. as a graduate of u of alabama law school he wouldn’t stand a chance as a nominee today. not enough jew professors at alabama.
actually, black thought that the privileges and immunities clause had NOTHING to do with incorporation and instead believed that the due process clause was the source of incorporation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_interpretation
it’s obvious all others than framers’ intent is fraud/usurpation.
peepee refused to post my longer comment on this despite having no open thread this sunday, because black lesbian.
read the whole thing and shut up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Black
i forgot there is one shitholer at yale law school who is also an original intent-er, Akhil Reed Amar.
so because jews love shitholers, swank has no excuse.
Black was noted for his advocacy of a textualist approach to constitutional interpretation. He took a “literal” or absolutist reading of the provisions of the Bill of Rights[59] and believed that the text of the Constitution is absolutely determinative on any question calling for judicial interpretation, leading to his reputation as a “textualist” and as a “strict constructionist”.
from quora:
“Originalism emphasizes the original intent of the framers. Questions originalists ask themselves when interpreting the Constitution are: what did the framers intent when drafting this article? What does the legislative history or records of the convention tell us about how this should be read?
In contrast, strict constructionism is focused on primarily the text as it is written, the “four corners” of the page should be the first consideration.“
men and women don’t have the same regressions for height and weight.
ex hypothesi blacks and whites have the same regressions for status on IQ.
do the simul peepee. you’ll see the means IQs are the same at ever level of status, just not at broad ranges. so, for example, blacks with above average status will have lower mean IQs than whites of above average status. but blacks in a narrow band of status will have the same mean IQ. the average status of blacks with above average status will be lower than that of whites with above average status.
sardinia vs iceland basketball is a perfect analogy to your black lesbian il-logic.
You’re confusing the regression line predicting IQ from status with the regression line predicting status from IQ.
The former line differs markedly between the races while the latter would be much more similar for both races (even without affirmative action) & that’s because IQ is only one of the causes of status
Regression lines do not necessarily work both ways. For example Jensen noted iirc that blacks and whites equated for head size still differ in IQ but blacks and whites equated for IQ do not differ in head size
if i had said “expected status” not just “status” in the above it might have been clearer.
no if you had just used your common sense, you wouldn’t made foolish comments like this:
for example, suppose you have 5,000 whites and 5,000 blacks and the correlation between IQ and status is 0.5. then you choose the status level as 1 for a normalized status. this can be simulated easily in excel. no one is going to be exactly 1 so you make it a band between 0.9 and 1.1. whites have mean IQ = 0, blacks -1. one example of the simulation gives 8 blacks and 102 whites at this level. the mean IQ scores are 2.000 and 1.978 respectively.
You clearly thought blacks and whites of equal status should have the same IQs in a race blind society. You were completely oblivious to the fact that race predicts IQ independently of even merit based status.
i defined what i meant by “same regression” above.
the correct analogy would be to draw from a subpopulation of men who have a lower mean height, like sardinians.
i’ll email peepee the spreadsheet if she has excel. she can play with it.
using the same example. average IQ of blacks with above average status is .53 vs white .79. or another random sample black .54, white .81.
[redacted by pp, July 31, 2018]
Mug of Pee is slowly getting the hang of it. These numbers make way more sense than your earlier ones.
i’m defining regression based on expected value and peepee on actual value.
that might explain it.
nope. still doesn’t explain it.
even using peepee’s apparent definition she is shown to be wrong and her heroes flushton, densen, murray, and me to be right.
here are figures for status levels 0, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2
these are average differences in SDs averaged over a random sample of 50,000 blacks and 50,000 whites.
0 0.7494786045
0.5 0.7405643392
1 0.7368885374
1.5 0.7842628909
2 0.7658280576
that is, there’s no difference in the mean difference using peepee’s apparent definition.
thus the increase in difference with status is the magic negro effect.
for psychological reasons peepee must believe that oprah is not a magic negro and that neither is peepee herself.
Your numbers are meaningless unless you provide more information.
Are those numbers Z scores? With respect to what population? Blacks, whites or both?
What’s the correlation between IQ & status for the total sample? 0.5? What’s the correlation within each race?
nowhere in the bell curve or in the flushton paper citing the bell curve i posted originally is peepee’s claim used to explain the increasing gap.
therefore flushton and murray are dumber than peepee. using black lesbian logic.
The average black and white differ in IQ at every level of socioeconomic status (SES) , but they differ more at high levels of SES than at low levels. Attempts to explain the difference in terms of test bins have failed. The tests have approximately equal predictive force for whites and blacks….
Black IQ scores go up with socioeconomic status, but the black white difference does not shrink….
The pattern shown in the figure is consistent with many other major studies, except that the gap flattens out. In other studies, the gap has continued to increase throughout the range of socioeconomic status.
in fact one should expect the difference to be nil or constant across status levels. the increasing difference can only result from the magic negro effect, aka the oprah effect.
as peepee knows i don’t like to think especially whilst inebriated.
so i’ll let her do the thinking for me. that’s like asking a blind man to drive you home from the bar.
the gap at all levels should be the difference between the means, usually taken to be 1 SD, multiplied by (1 – correlation^2).
so for a status IQ correlation of .3 the difference should be about .91 at all status levels. for .5, .75. for .7, .51.
why is this?
Because the more variance explained by status, the less leftover to be explained by race
But more to the point, the higher the correlation, the more selected a black is relative to her race than a white of equal status relative to his race.
That is, if the correlation is 0.5, the black is 0.5 SD (r * black-white IQ gap)more selected relative to blacks than the white is relative to whites, so if the correlation between IQ & status were perfect, they would close the black-white gap by 0.5 SD
But since the correlation is only 0.5, they close it by 0.5*0.5 SD = 0.25 SD, leaving 0.75 SD remaining
i did the calculation exactly rather by simulation and it’s correct. at all levels the difference is the same (difference in means)*(1 – correlation^2) assuming the same SD.
Much better! Apology accepted
the takeaways are:
1. the magic negro effect is real in the US.
2. blacks do have a different regression simply because they have a different IQ distribution.
3. peepee is a compulsive liar and math challenged.
1. the magic negro effect is real in the US.
And yet your attempt to prove it backfired spectacularly, leaving egg dripping from your pompous face
2. blacks do have a different regression simply because they have a different IQ distribution.
It only took you dozens of hours and a computer simulation to realize this completely obvious point i stated from the start
3. peepee is a compulsive liar and math challenged.
So you lost a math debate to a math challenged person. Sad
“blacks do have a different regression simply because they have a different IQ distribution.”
Why?
peepee doesn’t know. sad!
the expected IQ given a certain level of status will be lower for blacks. the locus of the points (status, expected IQ) will give two parallel lines a certain distance apart. one for blacks another for whites.
Of course I know. I’m the one who taught you. You thought it was a magic negro effect. LOL
now to a subtler point. what fraction of people informed of the fact that blacks of the same status have lower IQ scores would think that concerning and worthy of investigation? answer: 99%. even those who should know better, who have some stats, unlike peepee.
another consequence is that jews of the same status should have higher IQs. so jews at harvard should have higher IQs so far as IQ is not the sole determinant of admission directly or indirectly.
the point flushton and murray wanted to make was that status does NOT explain the IQ gap. if it explained even part of it the difference should narrow. instead it increases.
this gives a more constant gap:

[redacted by pp, aug 1, 2018]
suppose the gap were explained entirely by status. what would be the relationship between white and black status at the same level of IQ?
whites would have more status
then what would people say?
i’ll define same regression one more time for peepee. this time pay attention.
IQ vs status is plotted for blacks and then for whites. looking at the scatter plots they are identical except their thickest points differ. for whites it’s in the middle at 0. for blacks it’s at -1.
you called me an idiot for saying you thought this was not the case, then you said i was an idiot for not saying it.
peepee is like if hitler claimed he loved jews.
to put it another way the conditional distributions are the same for IQ and for status, whereas with the whole population regression you can have the same for status given IQ but not the same for IQ given status.
You expressed yourself so vaguely I had no idea what you were saying. But I hit it out of the park when I said two days ago:
Blacks having higher SES than whites of the same IQ = magic negro effect
Blacks having lower IQ than whites with the same SES = regression to the mean
What part of that did you not understand?
you said this in the context of calling me an idiot for saying you thought there were two regressions. the above statements are false if there aren’t.
No what you had said was:
…she thinks the regressions are different for negros than for whites and yet this is not the magic negro effect.
it’s the definition of the magic negro effect.
This was wrong: two regression lines are not the definition of a magic negro effect unless they are predicting status from IQ (and blacks have the higher line). I was implying two regression lines predicting IQ from status (with whites having the higher line).
even in that sense it’s still what people would call the magic negro effect, their black peers are dumber than they are.
By that standard there were magic negros in apartheid South Africa and Jim Crow USA, and yet no reasonable person would deny those were extreme white privilege societies.
IQ vs status is plotted for blacks and then for whites. looking at the scatter plots they are identical except their thickest points differ. for whites it’s in the middle at 0. for blacks it’s at -1.
is this even possible? explain your answer.
It’s possible that someone could draw a line of best fit through the black points on the scatter plot, and then draw a line of best fit for the white points, and both form a single line. Indeed that’s probably what’s supposed to happen when you predict GPA from SAT scores. If there are are two different regression lines for blacks and whites, that’s the very definition of psychometric bias. Jensen claimed tests were not biased in this sense, or if anything, they were biased in favor of blacks in that they overpredicted black GPA.
so when you regress IQ on status the black line is shifted down. so at status 0, the white regression goes through 0, but the black goes through -.75.
whereas before it was supposed from the beginning that blacks and whites had the same regression lines.
actually the white line should shift up a little if the population mean is for the whole population not just for whites.
besides it’s still the magic negro effect because smarter whites are passed over for blacks with more magicality.
Blacks having lower IQ than whites of equal status is not a magic negro effect because it’s probably been that way even before the civil rights movement.
to people who work with blacks it will seem like a magic negro effect. try telling them otherwise. for one thing peepee is not considering that one of the reasons for the much less than perfect correlation between IQ or some single objective measure and status is discrimination, including reverse discrimination.
the difference will only be accepted if some other objective character traits can be pointed to rather than just chance.
so to someone who complains about the difference you cannot say, “you’re an idiot, it’s regression.” that doesn’t actually explain anything let alone justify it.
so maybe now you can see why your claim that if blacks and whites with the same IQ have the same expected status this does NOT mean there is no magic negro effect.
the magic negro effect may merely lower the correlation.
for rr. james lee claimed he had circumvented the stratification problem by comparing siblings, but that the effects came back 40% weaker.
or maybe not. the idea is black IQ + magicality gets a black the same thing a honkey gets with the same IQ.
if blacks are discriminated against too and it’s a wash then the correlation falls and there appears to be a larger magic negro effect.
—
james lee said that GWAS is at an end for IQ. he was asked about rare variants. he said they’d be impossible to find. that is, identifying them as rare would be easy but identifying their effect would be impossible precisely because they’re so rare.
so rr was partially right. they have the rare variant excuse. but it has no remedy. and lee, unlike shoe, admits it’s game over and nothing new on the horizon.
Perhaps I am confusing correlations meaning, but if the correlation is .24 doesn’t that just measure the variance within the sample, not the actual increase in IQ relative to height. I am not disputing that IQ and height are correlated but your numbers seem off. Even in the study you sited they stated that they were looking at the extremes of height (2 percentile and 98 percentile) and that it is NOT a linear relationship. Also, why did you assume that they are comparing SD of IQ vs SD of Height? Did you get this information from the full study? Because the abstract didn’t seem to show your data.
0.24 is the correlation & thus the slope of the standardized regression line (assuming a bivariate normal distribution). 0.24^2 is the variance explained.
Correlation =/= Slope of the Standardized Regression Line though, correlation is simply measuring the variation within a sample, a correlation of 0 means there is no correlation, a correlation of 1 means a perfect positive correlation, -1 perfect negative correlation… They were not saying that for every 1 SD increase in height (3 inches) IQ increases by 0.244 SD (around 3 IQ points) at least in the abstract, they were saying that the correlation between height itself and IQ is only 0.244. If correlation was 1 that would mean that for every increase in height there is always an increase in IQ, if it was 0 there would be no relation. So I ask you again, were did you get your information that for every 1 SD increase in height there is a 0.244 SD increase in IQ. Not only that but in the abstract of the Danish Study they already stated the correlation was not linear, meaning that they cannot be a Bivariate Normal Distribution.
“…Both groups, however, appear to score somewhat below the levels expected from a purely linear relationship…”
The equation for Slope of the Standardized Regression Line is a = r(sy/sx) not a = r.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/41464139?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
http://www.statisticshowto.com/what-is-correlation/
http://www.statisticshowto.com/bivariate-normal-distribution/
https://www.thoughtco.com/slope-of-regression-line-3126232
Correlation =/= Slope of the Standardized Regression Line
It does if you assume a bivariate normal distribution which is what I assumed
Not only that but in the abstract of the Danish Study they already stated the correlation was not linear, meaning that they cannot be a Bivariate Normal Distribution.
Close enough, otherwise the actual IQs of the extreme stature groups would not have so closely matched the predicted IQs obtained by assuming their IQ Z scores would on average be their height Z scores multiplied by the correlation between IQ and height
Even in the study you sited they stated that they were looking at the extremes of height (2 percentile and 98 percentile) and that it is NOT a linear relationship.
Not perfectly linear but very close: men above 2 SD in height (+2.33 SD on average?) were +0.5 SD in IQ and men who were below 2 SD in height (-2.33 SD on average?) were -0.66 SD in IQ. The linear prediction from the 0.244 correlation is they would have been 0.244(2.33 SD) = 0.57 SD above and below average in IQ respectively, so instead of the tall and short men having IQs of 109 and 91 respectively, they were 108 and 90 respectively.
Also, why did you assume that they are comparing SD of IQ vs SD of Height? Did you get this information from the full study? Because the abstract didn’t seem to show your data.
Correlations are only meaningful if you assume a bivariate normal distribution and in this, a 1 SD increase in one variable predicts an r(1 SD) increase in the other because the slope of the standardized regression line equals the correlation (r).
Either way how can we be certain that this increases indefinitely, perhaps it is not linear as height increases past the 98th percentile or below the 2nd percentile. We already know that this is not a perfectly linear. Even if the study’s numbers are correct, which is questionable as other studies have found a smaller correlation (around 0.1) we cannot just assume an increase or decrease in average IQ forever…
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3044837/
Our best assumption of what happens above the 98th percentile is what happened below it
I can confirm that the tall, high IQ Asian woman of NE descent will look at a small black man such as myself, of lesser IQ (though still above white average), with disdain. Be that as it may, I can’t help but find the pretentious attitude attractive.
Why would Asian women have such a wide standard deviation? Possibly due to mixing genetic populations with much different average heights into one category?