In the Minnesota Transracial Adoption study, white babies, black babies, and mixed babies (biological father black; biological mother white) were adopted into white upper middle-class homes when they were 19 months, 32 months, and nine months respectively. The purpose of the study was to determine how much of the 15 point black-white IQ gap in the United States is genetic.
In 1975, the children and adoptive parents were IQ tested on at least an abbreviated versions of the Stanford Binet/WISC/WAIS (depending on age), and then retested in 1986 on the WISC-R/WAIS-R depending on age. Here are the results:
Because the norms on all the tests were out-dated at the time of testing (especially in 1975), John Loehlin attempted to correct all scores for the Flynn effect.
But many people ignore the IQs themselves, and instead just focus on the IQ differences. They see that at age 17, adopted whites scored 7.1 points higher than adopted mixeds in the unadjusted data, and 16.2 points higher than the adopted blacks, and conclude that the 15 point black-white IQ gap in the United States is roughly 100% genetic.
One problem with this is that black babies were adopted later than the non-black babies. Another problem is they were born to black mothers, while the non-black babies were all born to white mothers, so the prenatal and perinatal environments may have been quite unequal.
Thus I have always been more intrigued by the 7.1 IQ gap between the adopted whites and adopted mixeds. Since the adopted mixeds presumably had only half as much black ancestry as the typical U.S. black, it’s interesting that there’s roughly half the infamous 15 point black-white IQ gap, despite being gestated in white wombs and raised in white homes. Does this point to the importance of genetics?
Physicist Drew Thomas argues that the comparison between the adopted whites and adopted blacks is misleading because in the tables posted above, at both ages we only see data for the adopted kids who remained in the study for the follow-up testing in 1986. He argues that several low IQ adopted white kids dropped out of the study, and had they remained, the IQ gap between the adopted whites and adopted mixeds would have perhaps been only 3.5 points at age 17.
However this argument is starting to feel a little post-hoc. When you do a study, your data is what it is. You can’t adjust it for what it would have been had people you wished remained in the study. Almost any study can be debunked if we imagine how it would have turned out in a parallel universe where different people took part.
That’s not to deny that adjusting for attrition can be important in some cases, but in this study, Thomas argues attrition only increased the IQs of adopted whites and not the adopted non-whites. An effect that only affected one demographic sounds to me like random error, not a systematic bias that needs to be adjusted for. And if the error was random, one could just as easily argue the IQs of adopted whites were too low before the attrition rather than too high after the attrition.
Indeed if the adopted white sample is so easily skewed by a few kids dropping out of the study, then maybe that sample is too small to begin with, and instead we should compare the much larger sample of adopted mixeds not to the adopted whites, but to the general U.S. white population.
At an average age of 17, the adopted mixeds took the WISC-R and WAIS-R depending on age, and averaged 98.5 (93.5 after adjustments for the Flynn effect, since WISC-R and WAIS-R norms were 14 and 8 years old respectively at the time of testing).
However some top-secret research I’ve been slowly doing over the past decade suggests the Flynn effect has been wildly exaggerated, so while I don’t think their average IQ was as high as 98.5, I also doubt it was as low as the Flynn corrections say. Let’s split the difference and say 96 (U.S. norms).
By contrast, the whites in the WISC-R and WAIS-R standardization samples averaged 102.2 (standard deviation (SD) = 14.08) and 101.4 (SD = 14.65) respectively. Let’s split the difference and say 101.8 (SD = 14.4).
Thus converting to the more traditional scale where the U.S. white mean and SD are set at 100 and 15 respectively, the adopted mixed mean of 96 becomes ((96 – 101.8)/14.4)(15) + 100 = 94.
In other words, despite being gestated in white wombs and raised in upper-middle class white homes, having just one U.S. black biological parent appears to have reduced IQ by 6 points, suggesting that having two U.S black biological parents would reduce IQ by 12 points, suggesting that 80% of the 15 point black-white IQ gap in the U.S. is genetic. 80% squared is 0.64 which is similar to the 0.69 heritability of the WAIS full-scale IQ found in Thomas Bouchard’s study of identical twins reared apart, consistent with Jensen’s default hypothesis which claimed that IQ gaps between U.S. races are caused by the same nature-nurture mix that occurs within them.
To paraphrase President Obama, there is no black America or white America; from a nature-nurture perspective, there’s just America.
While this analysis seems to have controlled for the prenatal and family environment, it’ does not control for peer groups. Maybe as mixed kids raised in white homes, they were unmotivated on IQ tests because of the racist stereotype that being smart = acting white. On the other hand, they did better on scholastic tests than they did on formal IQ tests, suggesting motivation was not a problem.
If the genetic part of the U.S. black-white IQ gap is indeed 12 points and black Americans are only about 74% black on average it implies that 100% West African ancestry would reduce IQ by 16 points below the U.S. white mean (at least if we assume U.S. black ancestry is representative of West African ancestry).
And at least if we assume the Phenotype = Genotype + Environment model
Some readers invoke a reaction norm model where genotype A is higher IQ than genotype B in environment A, but lower than genotype B in environment B. Assuming such norm crossing occurs with IQ, my sense is that it would be limited to individual cases and cancel out in group level comparisons like the black-white IQ gap.
Some might argue that it’s inappropriate to compare adopted mixeds to the general U.S. white population because adopted mixeds might not be genetically representative of their parent populations. In The g Factor, Jensen states that the parents of the mixeds averaged 12.5 years of schooling (page 473) while just the mothers averaged 12.4 (page 478). From here we can deduce that the fathers averaged 12.6.
In 1975 America, white women and non-white men age 25+ had a median of 12.3 and 11.3 years of schooling respectively (see table 4 of this document). Comparable figures in 1986 were 12.6 and 12.5. So using education as a proxy, there’s no reason to think the mixed kids were selected to have lower IQs than the mean of their parent races. If anything, their biological fathers averaged more education than age 25+ non-white men throughout the full duration of the study and their biological mothers averaged about the same education as age 25+ white women.
Of course it would help to know the exact ages of the parents, rather than just lumping them in with everyone over 25. I can’t find the age of the biological parents of the mixeds specifically, but the bio moms and dads of all the kids who took part in at least part of the study (see table 3 of this paper) averaged 21.6 and 26.3 at the time the kids were born, and thus were about 29 and 33 in 1975 and about 39 and 43 in 1986, thus they were likely near the median age of the 25+ cohort by the end of the study.
Although this study shows the black-white IQ gap is highly genetic, several similar studies beg to differ. 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 ethnic 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 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 IQ’s 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 (non-white caucasoids or “dark whites” as they are sometimes called). In addition, there was no follow-up to measure the adult IQ of the children.
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 but the sample size was quite small, I don’t know anything about the bio-parents and again, no followup when the kids were older.
Pumpkin Person 
Having just one U.S. black biological parent appears to have reduced IQ by 6 points, suggesting that having two U.S black biological parents would reduce IQ by 12 points, suggesting that 80% of the 15 point black-white IQ gap in the U.S. is genetic. 80% squared is 0.64 which is similar to the 0.69 heritability of the WAIS full-scale IQ found in Thomas Bouchard’s study of identical twins reared apart »
—> i think you should have square rooted 80%, that’s 0.894, and not squared it at 0.64. A correlation of 0.64 would explain only half of the difference you found (40%). The gap would have been expected to be 6 points (black) and 3 points (mixed) if the bio factor had the same role between race than within. What you show is that either bio is underestimated within race or that it is twice as important between race wich btw would be the mirror argument of Lewontin.
0.64 refers to heritability which is both a correlation and a percentage of variance explained. It is the correlation between identical twins reared apart which is identical to H^2 (heritability) which in theory is the percentage of variance explained by DNA. The square root of heritability is the genotype-phenotype correlation which is the statistic that would predict the genomic IQ gap between blacks and whites from the phenotypic gap.
Note that the correlation between identical twins apart is NOT the genotype-phenotype correlation because each separated twin has his own environment which creates noise in the data. The square root of this correlation is the genotype-phenotype correlation (when environment is theoretically random)
I agree with this explanation. Thx Pumpkin.
All these studies are so dumb. We all know why there is this much ‘objection’ and prissiness around the studies (i.e. our high IQ ashekenazi friends trolling people). People will say the parents weren’t selected right, or the weather effected plants nearby differently or the test should have been in native bantu to psychologically ease blacks into the tests.
Take a picture of modern day Kingston, Jamaica.
Take a picture of modern day Manhatten.
Spot the differences.
Thats the only study you need. Whites transported to a new continent. Blacks transported to a new continent. They had hundreds of years to catch up. Instead they arguably went backwards.
Its obvious blacks did not evolve for higher IQs but athletic characteristics. Next topic.
An alt right counter view to these studies would be that all these kids were raised in white infrastructure with white cultural norms and white hospitals and white policemen making sure the kids could grow up healthy and in a position to do IQ testing.
The fact is the environment is a legacy of genetics. It makes no sense to say the environment is another completely different factor. The ‘environment’ usually means ‘other human beings’, which if it was 90% black would probably mean a study wouldn’t have been possible due to the lower IQs of the nurses, police, urban planners, sanitation workers etc etc
right. this is not appreciated by any of those in thrall to the individualist ideology.
the characteristics of a society do not follow in any obvious or simple way from the (hypothetical) characteristics of the individuals composing it. separating individual and societal characteristics is impossible for humans, at least.
for example, it could be negroes have the same potential, but only in majority white societies.
The same mutation that caused oprah’s super-sized brain likely also made her left-handed. Lefties are over represented among great artists, U.S. presidents & people scoring above the one in 10,000 level on the SAT
I want people to explain to me why evolution stopped the day humans started migrating from africa. Specifically I want a FULL explanation of why someone believes in evolution when it comes to debunking religious texts but not when it comes to IQ testing different breeds of human.
I agree that it’s silly to deny evolution continued post-African exodus, but there’s some logic to it. That was around the time humans started showing more cultural sophistication (i.e. unequivocal art) so Gould’s argument was that cultural evolution replaced biological evolution. I doubt Gould truly believed this, but it’s a clever narrative. The idea is once we had the ability to pass on new ideas to the next generation, we no longer needed to pass on new genotypes, so biological evolution stagnated while cultural change accelerated. People today are orders of magnititude more technologically sophisticated than Victorians, but genetically no smarter.
Another point is that all humans, regardless of race, are extremely similar in DNA. There is more genetic diversity in the same troop of chimps than there is in our entire species.
Lastly, it’s only been 50,000 years or so since we left Africa, which is a blink of the eye in evolutionary time. Compare it to the 7 million or so years since we diverged from apes.
So I’m not surprised a lot of smart people deny HBD. Not only does such denial make them feel good emotionally and benefit their careers, but there is a certain logic to it.
“I doubt Gould truly believed this”
Why? Have you read Full House? He doesn’t say that “cultural evolution replaced biological evolution”, he said that cultural evolution outstrips “Darwinian evolution” and that the term “cultural change” is more apt.
Gould is a con man and a jackass. For example, we know east asians developed slanty eyes to deal with snowfall and winter conditions. That has happened in the last 50k years and thats just 1 example of 50 I could name.
Gould is referring to important evolutionary changes, not trivial things like skin colour, eye shape or lactose tolerance.
Maybe he wanted to say, humans stopped to evolve their physical strenghts to mental strenghts or cultural evolution.
but “trivial” doesn’t mean anything. two people 30 IQ points apart are still the same in every “non-trivial” way. that is, they are far more similar than either is to any animal.
PP that’s literally his argument. Check pages 218-223 in Full House.
“Another point is that all humans, regardless of race, are extremely similar in DNA. There is more genetic diversity in the same troop of chimps than there is in our entire species.”
Isn’t that a matter of different phenotypes being expressed, despite same genotype? Because race is a consequence of phenotypic plasticity, it’s a bit of a strawman to argue in regard to genotype, right?
I could be misunderstanding or misapplying these concepts. Just shooting at the hip.
Race is not about phenotypic plasticity.
Wait, I’m using the colloquial form of race, not the actual definition, being sub-species. Is that still true for the differences in humans?
I have been giving this a lot of thought lately and I think the key to arriving at a fairly conclusive answer to this is in studying dogs. Wolves were domesticated anywhere between 18 to 32 thousand years ago while breeding began some 7 thousand years ago eventually to become modern day dogs. The brain of a wolf is on average 30% larger than that of a dog. The average generation interval for wolves is about 4.4 years while for dogs it seems to be around 3 years. Using this information we can work out number of generations it takes to reduce the brain by 30%(or increase it, it works both ways) while also making sure we factor in any acceleration due to selective breeding.
First off lets take the average period of when domestication happened to be around 25 thousand years ago. Assume then that for the 18 thousand years following that there was a generation period of about 4 years(reduced due to possible effects of domestication). This leaves us with 4,750 generations. Then lets consider a 3 years per generation for the subsequent 7 thousand years and a 2 times(overestimated) multiplier due to selective breeding. This gives us about 4,670 generations. This puts us at a grand total of ~ 9,400 generations that took us from wolves to dogs. Note that this caused a brain reduction of about 30% while for humans we are talking of about 10%(at most) difference between Africans and Europeans. So we divide the wolf-to-dog generations by 3 and get about 3,100 generations. Human generation length is anywhere between 15(during archaic times) to 25 years(in more modern times). Normally the average is about 20 years from a historical perspective. Doing the math this leaves us with roughly 62 thousand years that are needed to cause a brain size differential of 10%. Hmmmm now I’m not entirely certain but isn’t that roughly the time we supposedly came out of Africa?
Yes these arguments are quite pedantic to anyone with half a brain. The evidence is irrefutable when viewed from multiple angles but alas we are bogged down by “scientific” politics and all sorts of nonsense. Now of course I did a quick ball park figure analysis here and it might seem a bit of a stretch to map wolf-dog evolution to Human evolution but in my view this is one more piece of evidence(a major one) in support of HBD.
On a slightly different note the average year round temperature of Europe seems to be around 10 degrees while in the tropics is seems to be around 24 degrees Celsius. What is perhaps even more striking is that all months of the year are 18+ in the tropics while in Europe there is far more variance with sub zero to the high 20s within the same region throughout the year. From a macro-evolutionary perspective this is virtually irrefutable that the disparity in adverse conditions would explain much of the IQ difference we see today. My question however is that why would anyone move to a region with an average sub 10 degree temperature? I mean were they masochists or were they much more intelligent than that. Was this a slow process of acclamation, a need to keep pushing the boundaries of discovery OR were they cognizant of the old aphorism of “what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger”. Of course that isn’t all that old since it seems that Nietszche was the one that came up with it but I think that the concept is older than that, much much older!! In fact my sense is that culture and civilization did not slow down evolution, it just caused it to be aware of itself and made it more efficient and sophisticated. I think that once we evolved a large enough brain to develop an advanced culture we became cognizant enough of evolution that we took matters into our own hands. It doesn’t take a genius to look at their extended family and friends and realize that smart + smart = smarter, if I can survive a cold harsh winter I can survive anything, so on and so forth. I really don’t think that these ideas were beyond the scope of the human intellect 30-40 thousand years ago perhaps even much older than that.
Correction: The number of generations of wolf to dog is about 9,200(18,000/4 + 4,670) but this still leaves us with a ball park figure of ~ 60k years. I think the revised out of Africa time period is now at 70k years ago but still puts our theory comfortably within the margin of error.
Correction: The number of generations of wolf to dog is about 9,200(18,000/4 + 4,670) but this still leaves us with a ball park figure of ~ 60k years. I think the revised out of Africa time period is now at 70k years ago but still puts our theory comfortably within the margin of error.
Excellent analogy! Love how the numbers line up fairly well! Of course if you have enough genetic diversity and selection pressures are great enough, you can get orders of magnitude faster change in a given trait. Greg Cochran argues that about a 10 point IQ gap between Ashkenazi Jews and whites evolved in just 800 years. On the other hand, the 85 point IQ gap between whites and chimps took 7 million years to evolve, which would predict less than a 1 IQ point change since modern humans left Africa.
pumpkinperson
Yes I was actually quite surprised to find that the numbers aligned quite nicely. I did not expect this, I just made the connection when I saw that the brains of wolves were 30% larger than dogs so I thought I would crunch the numbers and see what came out all while making sure I plugged in the most accurate figures I could, given what we know so far.
Now of course it is much more complicated than that and personally I’m not an HBD absolutist. In other words I think that Extreme HBD is possible as well as the most mild forms of HBD. It depends on the circumstances and the environmental pressures. Also like I noted it is a bit of a stretch to map wolf-dog evolution to human evolution but I think that there is something to this. For one it shows that such a rate of brain size change is possible while it is important to note that we only started breeding dogs around 7 thousand years ago and only did so incessantly in the last 200 years which is why I think the acceleration factor of 2 IMO is more than enough. Also note that just because we bred dogs this does not mean that this invariably led to great brain reduction, after all for much of history we bred dogs to do difficult intelligence intensive jobs, like herding sheep, hunting, guarding. It’s only recently that we began breeding toy dogs.
As for Ashkenazis I do find their case extremely curious. I definitely accept that their IQ increase is a result of the last 2 millennia if not the last 800 years. So it certainly proves that it is possible to raise IQ significantly within such a period of time. However I think that a good percentage of their IQ advantage is cultural(maybe as much as 5 IQ points could be attributed to their sub-culture religion and upbringing). In other words their genetic IQ might actually be closer to 105-110 IMO. Still very impressive and more than enough for great accomplishment but not the astronomical 15 point advantage they are often ascribed. For one they actually have slightly smaller brains than the European average and though one could point to qualitative improvements that led to their increased IQ this makes me think that it is possible that their particular set of skills is ideal for this time in history(high on verbal). In any case the Jewish question, I think, is a particularly good example of the aphorism of “what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger”. They suffered a lot in Europe for a very very long time and this likely turned them into a formidable force in the world today.
So on a genetic level IMO the upper limit(outside of genetic engineering or eugenics but rather extreme cultural and socio-political forces) is about 15 points per millennia and the lower limit given the human-chimp disparity is around 12 IQ points per million years. Which means depending on the circumstances anything is possible between those two extremes. In other words evolution does not move at a fixed predictable rate. This should be obvious to anyone who has immersed themselves in this topic.
Weren’t the bio parent’s IQs “estimated” from education level?
No. bioparent IQs were not known and no one estimated it. But in the case of the mixed kids, the bio-parents has education that was typical for their respective races and genders at the time.
So why should I accept these conclusions if the IQs of the parents weren’t known?
the education of the parents is known which is a reasonable proxy for IQ when dealing with group level data. But yes it would be better to know their IQs.
How reasonable is it?
If the bio-parents were below the average IQ of their race on average, then you’d expect their education level to also be lower than expected for their race. Their educations were racially normal which implies there IQs were racially normal, unless you have some theory for why their IQs and educations would be mismatched.
I don’t think the assumption is apt. That’s one big flaw to “estimate” it in any sense. Nevermind the fact that test construction and item analysis explain IQ gaps. (Ie “thinking gaps, since the main aspect of test-taking is thinking). Putting it in this way, the claim is now “thinking is genetic and genetics explains differences in thinking within and between people groups and individuals.” Putting it in this way, I, hope, will have you see how ridiculous it is.
How would that make it ridiculous?
Language acquisition levels in first childhood is .. genetic*
Not to mention how ashkenazi intelligence seems to have rocketed passed sephardic jewish intelligence. How does gould explain that?
sephardic jews were minorities in shithole societies.
The Philosopher after leaving his shantytown and going to collage…
This is deeply disrespectful.
Maybe thinking mouse should reflect on what his parents would think if he married a magic negro.
Magic negro IQ is 115+
Not sure what’s the problem.
On the similarities subtest, in most cases, if the subjects don’t get the answer within a minute, they can’t get the answer if they think about it for longer right?
Right.
They wouldn’t get the answer even on another day too right, unless they had the answer manual, at least in most cases?
Correct (in my opinion)
The Philosopher
https://religionnews.com/2014/12/08/poll-whites-say-blacks-lazier-less-intelligent-whites-3-graphs/
interesting study on santo’s people. http://www.nickyee.com/ponder/topbottom.html
is this true? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WqRlQIeTU4
taleb is like o’brien. his mind contains sailer’s and cockring’s minds.
heavy metal is the ultimate white trash music, but it’s not american. it’s english. american heavy metal bands just imitated the english.
the eagles had a few good songs, but the only super group from the US was and is the doors.
both the eagles and the doors are from LA.
it’s easily understood but impossible to understand for anyone who hasn’t lived there.
Chillis are definitely not thrash metal. They started out doing pure punk rock and then went into more surfer radio friendly stuff.
the people who composed these bands weren’t native angelinos. that’s important.
what los angeles is like:
1. everything is new.
Architecture. Some of these buildings…
are over 20 years old.
This house is Greek revival. The…
Greek owner must be revived every day.
Here’s a Tudor mansion.
And a four door mansion.
2. even if it were old you couldn’t tell, because the weather never changes. it’s like everything is suspended in formaldahyde. https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/da3773a6-4f82-444c-95c2-0e098a31fa1d
3. it’s like revelation chapter 21…He who was seated on the throne said, “I am making everything new!”
4. except your life still sucks. the incongruence was the muse.
and just to show how ORWELLIAN the US has become.
LA is WAY more racist than alabama!
it’s not even close.
eric striker:
the government shut down was trump playing 18 dimensional chess to get the black vote, because all the black federal employees didn’t have to go to work.
Hahaha. I get the feeling maybe just intuition that a lot of blacks like trump more than obama in terms of the way he acts. Put it like this – they would like obama a lot more if he acted like trump.
Out of interest who here thinks climate change is a real and worrying phenomenon. Most alt right people have a conspiracy theory view of it that its globalists loking for more control. Im more liberal about it and have a conspiracy theory that energy companies fund criticism of it. It appears most scientists support the view its happening. Trumpy said climate change is a chinese conspiracy.
Basically i support obamas policies on it. Obama was 90% right on policy for me.
my view:
it’s real and probably human caused, BUT it’s nothing to worry about…
OR at least there’s plenty of time. i’m old enough to remember these scientists on the rag, casandras, claiming miami would be under water by now.
southern greenland is still colder than it was 1,000 years ago.
as an organic chemist manque, the one thing that is something to worry about is loss of biodiversity. so called “natural products” are often very effective drugs and impossible to synthesize economically.
i recall my advisor telling me how his advisor thought the effectiveness of natural products in treating disease was evidence of intelligent design…but my advisor said…”but he’s an orthodox jew.”
Climate change is real. Anthropogenic climate change is not real. If some transnational, bureaucratic organization is clamoring for taxes, then yes, it is a globalist conspiracy. It is not evident to me that most scientists even agree on anthropogenic climate change, seeing as the various studies done to ascertain this position were done fallaciously; if you didn’t explicitly disagree with anthropogenic climate change, while talking about climate change, then you are considered as part of the consensus.
Humans destroy green areas, drop mountains, pollute water [oceans/rivers] and air and all this HUGE activity supposedly have no real impact on intrincately sophisticated macro-climatic systems…
Another species also can have huge impact on long term on climate/ecossystems.
This destruction is continuing… Entire ecossystems are being eliminated from existence.. to build boring-industrial places with shoppings and masses of stupid people watching stupid hollywood movies.
Capitalism is to make destruction profitable.
The last places with huge tropical forests have sociopathic and idiotic ”elites”, miserable and dragged-corrupted countries as Indonesia and Brozil.
That yuval harari is a pretty smart guy. He almost convinced me thatnationalism is bad in his essay in the economist. Amazing how jewish verbal intelligence controls the world. This esay os a good example of how the original landed gentile elites were convincrd to turn their countries into human refuse dumping grounds.
yet the very highest VIQs are all european, goyisch.
what jews have is the gift of gab. they’re even better at jiving than negroes.
Pinker wrote a good essay as well in the economist. Pinker strikes me as someone who is much less ideological a liveral than say the un sec general or huffington post. Pinker is a psychologist so im surprised puppy has never mentioned him. He must have written about iq and head sizes before.
what about IQ and penis sizes?
most self-made billionaires don’t want to billionaires, in the sense that:
1. they did not set out to become rich. they set out to improve the world via starting a business.
2. one wins games, and games have an objective. most billionaires haven’t won the get rich game, because they weren’t even playing it.
3. most people do not want to be billionaires in the sense that what it takes to become a billionaire holds no interest for them; it’s boring and stupid.
Most people want to get paid as much as possible doing whatever work most people want to do. Self-made billionaires have achieved at least the first half, hence the correlation between IQ & lifetime income is 0.5, not 1.0
i remember charlie rose axing david rockefeller what his grandfather thought his greatest accomplishment was.
david said his grandfather was most proud of organizing a disorganized and inefficient oil production sector.
I saw the same interview. David gives a lot of hints during the interview that he was more powerful than the president. According to Stephen Talbot, Rockefeller is the gentile kingpin.
the ideal america is just black and white. no mexicans, chinks, or boxwallahs.
because this is what america was at the beginning.
people can argue about why till the cows come home, but the BRUTE FACT is diversity is a yuge weakness. the more diverse the country the more unequal and the less democratic.
what should be, what one wishes were the case, and what actually IS…these are NOT the same thing.
pill reifies ability at popular sports.
more likely is every race is best at some sport, but popular sports may be dominated by one race.
being good at sports in general is not a thing, because sports (like mental abilities) have no g factor.
the nfl is overwhelmingly black, but QBs aren’t. one physical reason for this…
I never said blacks were brilliant at sport. Just that they were more athletic on average. There are certain sports to do with hand eye co-ordination that asians are better at than blacks and whites but nobody would say they are a particularly athletic peoples.
hockey is a lot like baseball. because the puck is so small and so fast, hockey requires mental abilities more than physical abilities.
who’s the great black hope at hockey?
and despite all the fights and smashing into people, hockey players are NOT very impressive with their shirts off. they’re pretty average.
the interwebs claim a hockey puck is never at more than 105 mph, but soccer balls have been recorded at 114 mph.
i don’t believe it. unless a hockey puck is really heavy.
maybe andaman pymies would make great gymnasts.
you see this with monk. the trio album is the greatest jazz album ever made, but outside that monk was out of control, too jazzy.
negro genius needs a master.
white boys doing jazz…he played at one of gates’s birthday parties…
a white goy raised on a cattle ranch whoi couldn’t read music.
the white man steals it and makes it better.
better.
There is a parallel case to climate change. I remember when we were in school during geography they taught us how there used to be a problem with the Ozone layer and how CFCs in aerosols and such were causing a big hole to emerge in it.
Then I think something like the UN banned CFCs.
Another ‘looming catastrophe’ by cassandras of the 20th century was overpopulation. I sometimes see it in old books or old media. In Franzen’s book, Freedom he even has the main character start an organisation that fights against overpopulation in the world in a kind of homage to the earliest environmentalists. Then china implemented the 1 child policy and fertility everywhere except africa and india dropped.
Sailer actually has the same idea with his ‘most important chart in the world’ showing Africas population tripling by the end of the century. Of course he has an alt right view on the qualitative aspect of more africans rather than a pure quantitative sizing up of x more africans/humans.
But Bill Gates is more intelligent than steve sailer and he has assured us that black libidos flatten once monogamy and the sacred institution of marriage get invented in africa.
If Bill Gates just stuck to managing a software company that he was lucky to moonshot to sizeable wealth, I would probably even respect him.
What really gets my goat is that Bill decided to ‘save the world’ and then basically did something only an autistic person who believes CNN would think is a good thing for the world.
I remember in the early 90s and late 80s how people used to talk about AIDS as a ‘looming disaster’ as well.
Boy that whole thing really fizzled out quick. I guess the authorities did a good job educating people about it.
I remember one of the main reasons we were taught in sex ed to wear protection was because of the threat of AIDS.
it wasn’t even a threat to black africa. if the infection rates were as high as claimed black africa would have a much smaller population today than it did 30 years ago. the exact opposite of the case. HIV is hard to catch.
Y2K is another one. The whole millenium bug in computers thing. Puppy would remember this I’d say being an IT person.
What annoys me about business magazines and people in general praising the ‘genius’ of gates, zuckerberg, bezos et al is how fucking dumb their ‘inventions’ were. Gates never invented operating software. I read somewhere that he basically stole most of the code from an existing company’s product.But to be fair he showed acumen in thinking desktop PCs would be a thing, and IBM missed out.
Zuckerberg and Bezos are even worse. They are just websites. I remember there were many social networks before facebook, but Zuckerberg lucked out that the Harvard campus people he catered to at first had more natural pull with millennials. There is nothing in the original facebook that wasn’t being done.
Amazon is basically a mail order catalogue on a website. Thats it. I think Bezos makes more money now though from using his servers to rent out excess storage space to other companies, which is smart.
Amazon makes more money doing stuff that Oracle does than doing what proto Amazon does.
gates bought what would become DOS for $50,000 from a CS professor after lying to IBM that he already had an OS.
yet peepee still worships gates.
One of the things businesses and executives never mention is whether they had management consultants come in and tell them what to do. So in business magazines you will always see a kind of people magazine gallery of ‘daring CEO X’ and ‘visionary’ Y, and sometimes these people just hired McKinsey or Bain to tell them what to do.
but management consultants are diseconomic. they’re only hired so the executives can blame them or use them as an excuse.
i interviewed with arthur andersen, milliman, aon, etc.. they would “advise” on reserves for insurance companies and pension reserves for companies with pensions. they’d just tell management what it wanted to hear and charge $500 an hour or whatever.
People like Ray Kroc at McDonalds or that guy from Southwest airlines deserve recognition for coming up with a new way of doing business. Tech today is basically about just making a website/app for something that already exists.
What we see with the tech billionaires is survivor bias as well. Nobody talks about the 99,000 other ‘tech geniuses’, who are probably even more autistic than zuckerberg or gates going broke in the dot com bubble burst of the early 2000s. these people are probably playing world of warcraft in basements right now.
the macdonald brothers came up with the assembly line restaurant not kroch.
another guy gets it, Christophe Guilluy.
A monologue of two bitchies…
repeating the same vomits…
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56cb2be3356fb014def70abc/t/574bc6014c2f85ab1d8fd7c0/1464583688172/?format=500w
if i were michael dell i’d feel the same way. but that’s because i’d fund things which government does NOT fund.
for the things dell funds government might do it better due to economies of scale despite the inherent inefficiency of government due to the lack of motivation. but it’s the same for the military. 400 very efficient armies not fighting together are less efficient than one inefficient army. capiche?
what most people want:
1. enough. lagom ar bast.
2. not to have to worry about money. a safety net.
3. a successful marriage.
4. to be left alone.
[redacted by pp, feb 1, 2019]
enough is relative.
most people want as much money as possible, otherwise they wouldn’t work 40 hour weeks in jobs they hate, fight over tax laws, blow income on lottery tickets, or watch shows like dallas, dynasty, the apprentice and who wants to be a millionaire.
it’s a problem for the american elite’s worldview, or what they claim it is, that the most anti-immgrant country in western europe is…
denmark…
even more than italy.
denmark is also the least corrupt, the happiest, the most socialist.
one yuge problem for the “can’t we just all get along” people is that perverts are still racists.
i mean, fags and dykes still prefer members of their own race.
all love is narcissism and all sex is masturbation.
Hey Pill, do you think every white person has a magic negro?
It seems everyone “worships” at least one black. For me it’s oprah. For lion & pill it’s obama. For mug of pee it’s Afro. For many conservatives it’s Thomas Sowell
i dont worship obama lol
I think how people still is there reading the same nonsense over and over again by mental ill people…
You’re certainly not a cult leader.
So stop trying to act like one.
Who are you talking to?
Pill!
I guess every race has a magic something, like blacks have magic Asians or magic Indians, but they don’t have to explicitly and outrightly say it.
That’s why whites are so entitled.
I’ll leave that to your interpretation.