Prestigious Black national merit finalist GondwanaMan writes in the comment section:
… I’ve heard Thomas speak multiple times over the past 10 years and he seems very intelligent but I’ve heard mixed things about his behavior/intellect. Maybe PP can do an IQ analysis I would be very interested…
Thomas came from nothing to become one of the most powerful men on the planent. He is clearly intelligent compared to the average American, but in my opinion he would score lower on an IQ test than most other members of the super-elite.
For one thing, Thomas is known for his chilling silence. Unlike other supreme court judges who ask questions and make comments, Thomas has been largely silent for decades, much like the dim-witted Jason from the Friday the 13th movies.
Conservatives tend to score lower on IQ tests than liberals and blacks tend to score lower than whites, but because blacks are almost never conservative, the rare combination of being both conservative and black doesn’t bode well.
Of course conservatism is a vaguely defined moving target so Thomas may have very intelligent reasons for his political views that are actually quite liberal in the true spirit of the term. For example Thomas opposes affirmative action, not because he’s anti-black, but because he saw first hand how being seen as a token devalued his Yale Law degree. While white law grads had elite law firms at their beck and call, Thomas had to apply to dozens of firms to even be considered. Of course this was the 1970s when there was a lot more racism.
In general he felt that affirmative action benefits light-skinned blacks from elite backgrounds while dark skinned blacks like himself had to work much harder. Of course if racial IQ differences are genomic, we’d expect darker skinned blacks like Thomas to have lower IQs (on average) than their lighter skinned peers like Obama and Corey Booker. From page 45 of the book Strange Justice written by Jane Mayer and Jill Abramson:
Not only was he short, and in his teen years slight, but he also had exceptionally African features years before the Black is Beautiful movement made them desirable. “He was darker than most kids, and in that generation, people were cruel,” recalled Sara Wright, a librarian for the Savannah Morning News who attended elementary and junior high school with Thomas. “He was teased a lot and they’d call him [N word redacted by PP, 2020-03-02] Naps” for his tightly curled hair. “A lot of the girls wouldn’t want to go out with him.”
Thomas himself remembered being called “ABC,” or “America’s Blackest Child.” Even friends recollect taunting him that “if he were any blacker, he’d be blue.” As Lester Johnson, who is now a lawyer in Savannah, recalled, “Clarence had big lips, nappy hair and he was almost literally black. Those folks were at the bottom of the pole. You just didn’t want to hang with those kids.
…The most prominent families in town since before the Civil War were for the most part what a local history of African-Americans called “high yellow,” or mulatto. At the same time, many of those with pure African bloodlines, like Thomas were made to feel inferior.”
…At Yale he talked bitterly about the “light-skinned elite” blacks who had it easier than the darker ones.
pg 45 of Strange Justice
Of course race is only one variable that correlates with IQ and we shouldn’t give it too much emphasis, as some very dark skinned blacks score far higher on IQ tests than 99% of whites and East Asians, however as the below photo with George H.W. Bush shows, Thomas has many physical traits that put him at risk for low IQ.

Thomas is much shorter and more muscular than his fellow elite George H.W. Bush. Height is positively correlated with IQ and weight/height ratio is negatively correlated with IQ. Also the cranial capacity of the elder Bush seems to dwarf Thomas’s. But to his credit, Thomas is wearing glasses and myopia is thought to be genomically linked to high IQ.
So what is his IQ?
It’s unclear if Thomas ever took an official IQ test but he almost certainly took proxy versions like the SAT and LSAT. However these scores are not known so we’re left only with his grades.
The book Strange Justice describes his academic behavior at Holy Cross college:
But much of his time was spent alone, usually studying. His classmates recalled that when they went to dances at nearby schools on Saturday nights, Thomas often preferred to stay in the basement of the college library. When the school threatened to shorten the Saturday night library hours, he petitioned the authorities to keep the facility open. And when others went away during holidays, he stayed in the otherwise empty school, explaining later that he viewed such breaks as a valuable opportunity to get ahead of the other students.
Academically, his efforts paid off. He wrote to a friend that he had managed to maintain a 3.7 grade point average, and he graduated in 1971 with honors, ranking ninth in his class
According to The New York Times, Thomas’s grades at Holy Cross were in the top 7% of his class.
Let’s assume grades are simply an average of IQ and hard work (averaging is appropriate because two variables are not correlated). If we assume Thomas was in the top 1% in hard work (skipping holidays, petitioning the library to stay open), which is 2.33 standard deviations above the class average, how high would his IQ have to be to end up in the top 7% (+1.6 SD). Simple algebra tells us that if he was +2.33 SD in hard work (relative to Holy Cross students), his IQ could be no higher than +0.87 SD for his grades to be +1.6 SD.
So now that we estimate Thomas’s IQ was +0.87 SD relative to Holy Cross students, we need to know what their IQ distribution was.
Circa 2014 Holy Cross had a median SAT score of 1280 out of 1600 which equates to a mean IQ of 128 (U.S. norms).
However we know Harvard students went from an SAT IQ of 143 to an IQ around 128 with an SD of 12 on a test not used to select them (one third regression to the mean) so the actual IQ distribution at Holy Cross (in 2014 and perhaps historically) was likely around 118 with a standard deviation around 12 (compared to the U.S. distribution of 100 with an SD of 15).
Thus Thomas’s estimated IQ is 118 + 0.87(12) = 128 (U.S. norms) or 127 (white norms). In other words, smarter than 96% of white America.
Is this estimate too high?
There is reason to think this estimate might err on the high side. For example on page 201 of the book Yale Law School and the Sixties: Revolt and Reverberations it states:
…Associate Dean Ralph Brown recalled that “we were admitting blacks very indulgently, and a lot of them could barely do the work.” When courses required in-class exams, minorities tended to end up “in the bottom,” Charles Reich said. “You couldn’t disguise that”. One could get around it, he added, by having students write papers that, after several drafts, might well deserve a high grade, as he did for Clarence Thomas. But first semester courses required exams.
Since first semester Yale Law courses require exams, perhaps the best estimate of Thomas’s IQ can be found in this paragraph from Strange Justice:
His academic records remain, with his consent, sealed. But professors and administrators from his era recall him as an average student, hard-working but not particularly brilliant. There is only one professor –Thomas I. Emerson– whose records have been made public. Thomas elected to take Emerson’s first-year course on politics and civil rights in 1972, and Emerson’s notes show that he finished the class near the bottom, with a 69 for the semester. One of only two students who scored lower was Thomas’s friend and later witness against Hill, John Doggett.
Interestingly Doggett is also a black conservative.
Assuming about 20 students per class room, being in the bottom three puts Thomas in the bottom 15%, or roughly 1.13 SD below the class mean.
Although students at the best law schools average around IQ 145 on the LSAT, they likely regress to 128 (with an SD of 12) on tests not used to select them. Thus if Thomas’s bottom 15% performance in Emerson’s law class implies an IQ of:
128 – 1.13(12) = 114 (U.S. norms) or 112 (U.S. white norms).
Higher than 79% of white America.
That sounds about right.
[this article was lightly edited on March 3, 2020]
There are some people with an enormous amount of mental energy, like maybe RR, though not necessarily lots of fluid intelligence , who are intrigued by thinking. Thomas was a young liberal who turn conservative in his mid twenties. After getting his JD, he read Hayek and Ayn Rand etc to become a conservative libertarian.
He has crystallized an enormous amount of intelligence in the law field. After the death of Scalia, he asked one question that would maybe have been the question Scalia would have asked and completely changed the debate and the outcome. Probably his fluid IQ , my guess is also in the 115-130 , is not relevant because he is so high in termes of legal IQ thanks to a technical and general culture and experience of law, people and society.
I am a fan of Clarence Thomas speech because there is something deep, strong and attractive in him. He is very pleasant to listen to (for example a Harvard speech and Q&A)
“one third regression to the mean”
What about Flynn’s (2019) and Cernovsky and Littman’s (2019) articles (about Rushton, no less) showing that how hereditarians use RtM is false?
https://www.mdpi.com/2624-8611/1/1/3/htm
As pointed out already a few decades ago by Nesselroade, Stigler, and Baltes [4] on the basis of statistical research, “Regression toward the mean is ×not a ubiquitous phenomenon, nor does it always continue across occasions.” For example, medical data indicate that untreated alcoholics or untreated patients with highly malignant cancer do not regress to the mean of their racial group: their illness usually progresses to adverse or terminal outcomes. It is a pseudoscientific practice to apply the concept of regression toward the mean to IQ scores of ethnic groups, see expert discussion by James Flynn [3] in 2019.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332449021_Interpol_Crime_Statistics_and_Rushton's_Racial_Dogma
What about Flynn’s (2019) and Cernovsky and Littman’s (2019) articles (about Rushton, no less) showing that how hereditarians use RtM is false?
Haven’t read the paper & probably won’t because most criticism of rushton is just virtue signaling
Even I disagree with the arguments rushton & jensen have made about regression to the mean because they used it to infer genetic differences which made no sense.
I’m merely saying that elite college students regress from the test used to select them to a random test.
it could also be rr is the illegitimate son of french rugby player Sebastien Chaba.
the black death started in messina sicily.
i wouldn’t be surprised if this was due to the hair styles of the male messinese.
plagues prior to AIDS have less reliable estimates of total dead.
but AIDS may be third or fourth deadliest plagues ever after the black death and the spanish flu.
AIDS became an epidemic in the lake victoria region and kinshasha at about the same it did among iv drug users and gays in the US, but it had been around for decades prior to 1975. traditional negro culture is monogamous and gay stuff is un-known.
This is possibly the dumbest attempt youve made at estimating IQs. You first averaged ‘hard work’ and brainpower into a rank order and you have no idea how in real life hard work and brains are proportioned for yale grades so you took them to be equal.
Then you come out with an estimate of 114 IQ which even I, a complete and proud racist would say is too low for a surpreme court justice. Clarence probably scored low in the civil rights class because he wrote a lot of opinions challenging the basis of most civil ‘rights’. It sounds like a wishy washy class based on opinion matching the professor.
[redacted by pp, March 2, 2020]
If Gary Kasparov can be world chess champion with IQ 135, then an IQ 114 can be on the Supreme Court. As g-man implied, most of the heavy lifting is done by the clerks.
And studies show IQ & consciousness each explain about half the variance in grades iirc
Is really half explained by conscientiousness??? Most studies I’ve seen I think show lower. Like maybe 10-20% C, 50-60% IQ, and the rest random factors…
I could be mistaken.
Honestly I want to make it clear that my opinions are not the same as the blog author and I am here to constantly correct him and try to improve the quality of this thrash that keeps coming out.
Are you drunk?
I’m still looking for a psychiatrist. I canceled my appointment at the last one after I found out my co-pay would be $120/hr. Now the current one is taking like 5 days to verify my insurance information.
I really hate how making bank matters more than actually helping people. And it’s not like this shit has a chance at working anyway.
And pretty much no one I know really cares, which makes it worse. I told a few classmates that I’m working on a lot of stuff with about it last week, and they’re already back to being demanding assholes. FUCK.
You need to move out after you’re done with school.
What do you mean?
It looks like you don’t like where you live.
[redacted by pp, March 2, 2020] there is nothing wrong with being a racist. Even the people that made up and propagate the term are themselves racist, particularly against gentiles.
Long before Jewish influence the most intelligent were less racist. Why? Because it’s irrational to judge the individual by the group
So Charles Darwin was an idiot then by your logic or the guy that discovered DNA.
They believed in hbd not racism. Contrary to elite propaganda, I distinguish the two. I’m a hardcore HBDer but don’t consider myself racist
You said east asians were ‘genetically superior’. 99% of people would say thats racist. Thats even more racist than me. I simply have a hatred or a disgust of certain groups but you actually believe in the eugenics aspect which I don’t.
No eugenics is a policy prescription, my ranking is just a putative statement of fact. Facts can’t be racist, though maybe knowing certain facts makes one racist by some definitions.
But oxford’s main definition of racism is:
Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.
This describes you and Mug of Pee, not me
I won’t say you’re racist but saying East Asians are genetically superior is not a fact and doesn’t make sense in the context of biology. If anything Africans would be “genetically superior” because they have the most genetic diversity.
[redacted by pp, March 2, 2020].
the higher the class the more racist. this has always been the case and is the case today.
Might depend how you define racism
Pumpkin is right, the intelligent classes of the older ages of man would judge a person by their character first and foremost and then by their racial identity secondly. The most obvious cases were when dealing with a leader of a group or high status individuals in a group, you’d treat them very differently than the average person of that group. Colonialists of all types had respect for various individuals of different groups and groups as a whole, like in India with the Rajputs and British…
“but saying East Asians are genetically superior is not a fact and doesn’t make sense in the context of biology”
It’s the Rushton “more evolved”/”progressive evolution” nonsense.
within any multi-racial society the upper class will be one race or one (((race))).
that is,
the upper class have the LEAST experience with other races unless they’re (((races))).
and thus are “racist” in the sense that they have negative sexual interest in non fellow travelers.
for example:
even though white women are the most “racist” on dating sites, and even though black women out-perform black men economically…
white-black couples are like all black male- white female.
because women are whores in dean moriarty’s sense…that is, they’re just like gay men except not as horny.
so if a man is very good looking and not stupid and not lower class…
women can’t comtrol themselves.
they’re just like fags.
As Thomas himself has complained, I remain completely skeptical of any elite NAM because of the prevalence of AA. Not only the prevalence but the degree to which it’s practiced, or how egregiously substandard persons can be promoted. I would have to work with them personally before I made any favorable statements about them.
Say, a question to Pumpkin: what are the best predictors of iq or ability in our current civilization? How would he estimate the average iq of MDs? This question may have been discussed before, so a link would also be appreciated.
I’m more inclined to believe 127 than 114 tbh, just based on his being a Supreme Court Justice. I also felt bad reading his early experiences with racism and discrimination.
I’ve read a lot about Clarence Thomas but I wasn’t familiar with those particular statements. Pretty fucked up if you ask me…kinda funny but definitely fucked up…
I think pp’s analysis of black republican iq is kind of faulty. The assumption is made that iq is negatively modified by being a republican, but political class in America is nuanced and largely based on race, I believe. Educated whites tend to be high iq democrats because they imitate their peer group of academia. Colleges tend to be liberal for cultural reasons. Working class whites are republican because they resent their wages and earnings being garnished through taxation to support minorities, without any of the pie in the sky indoctrination from liberal professors. This accounts for the iq correlation among whites.
Among blacks however, they are overwhelmingly democrats bc they rely on social services, while remaining quite conservative on certain issues, such as gay issues, calling to witness the recent snubbing of buttigeg. Black republicans on the other hand, i theorize, are in fact that cohort of blacks whose performance overlaps with the white working class, and their political stance reflects similar concerns. Hence I would think the iq political affiliation is likely reversed for blacks.
But blacks are also quite liberal on foreign policy. They were much less likely to support the Iraq war.
I think low IQ people are conservative because they lack compassion for underdogs because compassion requires g loaded skills like cognitive empathy.
But if you’re an underdog yourself & still lack compassion for underdogs, that might imply especially low IQ, both because you’re an underdog & because you can’t even empathize with yourself
You’re right, I have noticed blacks as a group are very smart and independent on foreign policy.
I suppose empathy is a factor for the more honest libs. But I think white college educated liberals are more motivated by resentment of and desire to put themselves above white proles, a sort of inverted love of the alien. I’m highly cynical on this.
Please do a post estimating the iq of mds. 😉
“compassion requires g loaded skills like cognitive empathy.”
My dad has a lot of compassion and hes intellectually limited. Theres no link between empathy and IQ in my opinion.
Broadly speaking high IQ groups like east asians and jews tend to be LESS empathetic.
That’s true Philosopher, East Asians tend to be very pragmatically minded, and while not needlessly cruel, not at all sympathetic to struggling races. And they have on average higher iqs than white liberals, as we are hearing from harvard lately!
Whites are the most nepotist race out there. They’ll only support people with similar beliefs, regardless of anything else. You agree with whitey, you’re in the clear, otherwise you’re a threat. Whites are the most disagreeable race! Maybe they have empathy but they’re so disagreeable it’s hard to find a way to change their mind on a topic. Maybe why Republicans don’t get brainwashed as easily, who knows. All I can tell you is that they’re very controlling of what ideas are in their head and what isn’t. No open-mindedness at all…
Wow Chris Matthews got fired. I said he was saying a lot of weird stuff lately.
I think I’ve mentioned before that I’ve actually interacted with Justice Thomas on multiple occasions (and not just recently), and he previously struck me as fairly similar to me in terms of intellect: capable of semi-high-level intellectual achievement if he is extremely disciplined and in the right place at the right time, but not necessarily going to stand out if surrounded by other accomplished intellects and if not given an opportunity to shine, or if not matched with high conscientiousness. Possibly capable of completing an undergraduate degree in STEM but not much more. Obviously capable of completing a law degree or PhD in the Humanities. Somewhat nuanced worldviews but for the most part mainstream beliefs that aren’t too radical or unique. Diverse hobbies but again, not particularly outstanding in any of them. He’s made some pretty stupid decisions over the years and his quietness on the bench leads me to believe that he might be closer to 110 (my lowest estimate of him) than 120 (my highest estimate). I think Pumpkin’s estimate is basically dead-on.
What stupid decisions has he made over the years?
Tryna get freaky with Anita Hill.
Why don’t you ask him to be a clerk? Just mention you are a national merit finalist and that youre black.
Maybe I should have. He’s gone now. And I don’t have much a resume so far; my first semester grades were pretty mediocre and my previous work experience is kinda blah…
And luckily I just got an extremely well-paying internship for this upcoming summer. But I’m guessing you meant further on down the road. I’m actually gonna try to get in touch with him.
Joe Biden might have alzheimers. Or at least entering the phase of his life where his brain starts losing neurons.
Hilary definitely has Parkinsons.
When people get older the brain starts to shrink & they rely more on cognitive reserve. But sadly Biden likely damaged his reserve brain tissue when he had an aneurism is 1988 so he perhaps has no backup
I think its actually really embarrassing. I saw him in the debate and most of his sentences where like incomplete and random phrases. Im surprised the media hasn’t questioned his cognitive profile.
They can’t question it because they want him to win
And you don’t think Mr. Trump has cognitive weaknesses either??? I mean, good working memory but his major weaknesses is that he doesn’t have the general knowledge a President should have.
Pill, you’re such an insincere dummy…it’s funny, though, keep trying to prove to yourself that things are going to shape up the way you want them to! It’s like a carrot-on-a-stick!
actually i think working memory is trump’s biggest weakness. he almost never speaks in complex sentences like he did when he was young.
His intuition is top-notch, though. He always knows the right move to make from an emotional standpoint.
Pumpkin I sent you an email….
When a group has been selected by using a test that has a less than perfect correlation with g, as a rule of thumb, I would diminish its correlation with g to the square value of this correlation. You could also substract half the difference with perfect correlation form it to get a slightly higher correlation. (0,7 —> between 0,49 and 0,55)
So if SAT correlates with g at 0.7, if you had university who didn’t use SAT and their students scored at 145, their average G would be 130. But if the group had been selected only using SAT, it would regress at 121.
As universities use gpa wich also correlates with g and probably the fact of applying to best universities itself correlates with g, it’s normal that you would get higher values. Carlson score was on Psy class students mainly who aren’t the brightest. Probably the average is a bit north of 130.
Critically in the case of law schools, the entrance exam (LSAT) is weighed more heavily than entrance exams for other types of schooling. Like WAY more heavily. Most schools weigh LSAT about 50%, GPA about 30%, and other factors about 20% (most importantly if your race is black, Mexican or Puerto Rican; other races don’t get any kind of bump). So I’m guessing regression to the mean for the average LSAT for entire law schools when performing another test would be massive…even moreso than what PP states.
The less the evaluation correlates with g, the more it matters whether it was done for the purpose of the selection itself or independently (after the selection was done or at least not influencing it).
That way it sounds more intuitive.
Then the impact of the weight of each test on resulting correlation depends both on the test own correlation with g but also on their co-variance. But the intuitive appreciation is that it’s good to have several not corelated tests provided each one is not to low in g load.
Then at the individual level, you know that 2 IQ tests that correlate at 0.7 among each other will typically give more than 16 IQ points differences in results for the same guy. And that is the same as the average difference among 2 individuals. So it’s even more difficult to know a person IQ than a group IQ 😊
Can you cite which studies you rely on when it comes to politics and IQ? Most that I’ve seen referenced have flawed methodologies or are poorly interpreted. A comprehensive study cited by a TNS member shows that the political cohort with the highest mean IQ in the U.S. is the centre-right. This may be because they are more secular but have enough value in the marketplace to support laissez-faire policy. For what it’s worth, the same study showed that extreme left-wingers were smarter than extreme right-wingers. I know that because you are liberal and take pride in your intelligence, you are motivated to believe data that props you up Even though you have a relatively objective personality, you’re still human.
If you define intelligence as the ability to adapt, why is it that liberals are seemingly more maladaptive in the biological sense? Conservatives resist change, but a hallmark of modern liberalism, among whites, is self-hatred and welcoming genocide of your own kin. You may suggest that this implies greater “emotional intelligence,” but I would argue the opposite, as being less able to cope emotionally with perceived injustice suggests low IQ/ability to adapt. How can an animal be defined as intelligent/adaptive if its behavior and thought processes makes it harder for its genes to thrive and its comfort to be maximized?
“hallmark of modern liberalism, among whites, is self-hatred and welcoming genocide of your own kin. ”
That has absolutely nothing to do with liberalism. You sound delusional.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/coronavirus-mike-pence-quarantine-florida-sarasota-military-academy-a9372861.html?fbclid=IwAR2665T04YTnnbT34_bQXrJIho1Cnvz2Bg98-Kr-9oDT0LMnEiToIb1JDdk
[redacted by pp, March 3, 2020]
Here’s a therapy question for Phil. How honest are you with your therapists about your political views? I think I’ll be starting pretty soon.
100% honest.
Hard to believe that I’m more intelligent than Clarence Thomas. Supreme Court judge is an elite status. But it gives credence to hard work and the brains adaptability to intellectual rigor beyond one’s immediate ability. I’ve assumed marginal gains are possible between 18-25 in IQ.
I wish I had the conscientiousness to support my supposed 125+ IQ.
Billy, you may well be an intellectual elite for the black community! I’ve read what you wrote on your political beliefs and what not and you seem very, very smart.
What is your current position in life? Conscientious action and hard work are important but with a 125+, you should be able to make the most of your situation and really establish something for yourself. Plus, conscientiousness can always be trained so you just need motivation and that extra push imo.
Can conscientiousness be trained? Personality traits fluctuate across one’s lifetime but this is for genetic reasons. I’m not sure if it’s meaningful to say that one can “train” one’s conscientiousness, any differently than one can’t really train one’s IQ, except maybe to improve one’s performance on narrow tests of IQ.
“Personality traits fluctuate across one’s lifetime but this is for genetic reasons.”
Care to elaborate?
Well, certain aspects of conscientiousness can be trained, not the entirety of the trait itself. Practicing to become more conscientious is a lot more fundamentally productive than training to practice for IQ because problem-solving or other things IQ has major correlations with are a lot more difficult to produce as gains than trying to create a better work ethic, being able to concentrate better, etc.
There are drugs like Adderall that you’re familiar with, Gman, that probably affect conscientiousness more than IQ anyways so I’m guessing practicing for it would also resemble the ability for drugs to impact IQ and conscientious ability.
I have an elite IQ for blacks, but mediocre for my field or fields equivalent in cognitive strength. I compare myself to those in the latter, because I don’t put too much focus on the black community as an everyday concern; more than half of my upbringing was not in a black community, and I currently do not live in one. I am sympathetic towards it, but mostly from an abstract of caring for a lower class of people.
And my political beliefs are evolving, still. Andrew Yang kind of made me pull away from economic right/left dialectic and see the humancentric capitalist approach with earnest. Technological advancements will shift modalities and require less strict positions to reconcile them with the new world we’re fast approaching. My focus now is trying to be open-minded about opinions from both sides. Though I can never appreciate socialism and communism to a foremost extent, I can see the concerns that underlie them to be valid, and capitalism perhaps insufficient alone to address them. This should not be confused with leaning towards liberalism. I am a conservative, but I will not peg my conservatism to economics. For me, conservatism is a social thing.
It’s all a bit complicated for me, still, though.
And my current position isn’t at all remarkable. I’m in my mid-20s and in a mid-level position. My motive for finding out my IQ is to encourage me to do better. The Mensa test only told me that I am 125+. Though, it seems like I’m probably 130+, if I’m to take the Mensa qualification criteria seriously. It appears that I might have a pretty significantly divergent cognitive profile, too, with my verbal IQ being exceptionally high, and working memory and or processing speed being merely above average.
Blacks are like the anti asians billy. Theyre bad at math. Never needed it in the bush when they were hunting antelope. I have the same profile as you. My VIQ is supposedly very high but my math IQ is merely above average.
“Though, it seems like I’m probably 130+, if I’m to take the Mensa qualification criteria seriously.”
Shoot for the stars and try the Grail society one. 1 in 76 billion. 2000 people have taken it and “no one has come close.” (Mocking the “if I’m to take the Mensa qualification criteria seriously” comment.)
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2019/08/18/high-iq-societies/
Your verbal isn’t that high, Pill. Maybe your abstractions relate to a higher verbal, but in terms of pure crystallized you’re somewhere where your math is, unfortunately.
You have a very abstract mind and your conveyance of such is very high but you don’t necessarily remember words, facts, etc as competently as someone would with an extraordinarily high verbal.
if i had rr’s hair style i would deliberately infect myself with bolivian macupo aka bolivian hemorrhagic fever…
and then i would shoot myself in the butthole.
rr’s hair style is a public health problem. the government of king county washington has declared it illegal.
think of all the deadly viruses it contains, not to mention the bacterium yersinia pestis.
great minds think alike. i woke up singing two mornings ago.
Thank you loaded for that expert analysis. You are very smart.
You’re welcome, Pilly 😉
i always feel like when i try to improve my conscientiousness theres a tradeoff. if i clean up my room then i just feel like messing it up again later. when i study harder i take more addie or i eat more. when i stop looking at porn i get hornier and cant concetrate. theres always tradeoffs whether you realize it or not.
“rr’s hair style is a public health problem. the government of king county washington has declared it illegal.”
Dude, it’s going to be OK. Hair transplants/plugs exist.
that south asian guy in the vid is a parsi.
sad!
rr,
YOU DON’T HAVE TO PUT ON A RED LIGHT!
long hair in men AND women is totally impractical just like facial hair…
therefore it is UN-Cynical.
diogenes is ashamed of arnold and rr.
frosting on the cake?
why are you eating cake?
well at least peepee did “thomas’s” rather than “thomas'”.
the correct formation of english’s genetive case is the most accurate way to distinguish autistc high IQ from non-autisic high-er IQ.
english is the least inflected of all indo-european languages but it retains a genitive case.
of subgroups of indo-european languages the romance languages are least inflected.
english is least inflected because after anglo-saxon was established, vikings conquered half of england (the “danelaw”) and then in 1066 vikings from normandy conquered all of england…but these vikings spoke french not old norse.
so english is itself a creole and former pidgin.
the interesting thing about english’s genitive case is that it’s the same phonologically as its plural inflection.
so there were multiple Xerxes-es. so the complaint “too hard to say” is retarded.
there’re lots of languages way harder to enunciate than english.
Grammar does not matter beyond basic spelling, and maybe commas. Only autistic pedants rely on that shit. The vast majority of people don’t know proper grammar, and yet we all understand each other perfectly fine.
English has to be one of the dumbest languages.
Pit-cher of water
Baseball Pit-cher
Pic-ture on a wall
Who else sees the retardation there? Why would you not spell one of the “pitchers” with a “ture” instead? There’s a plethora of other examples as well.
Rough
Through
Though
Cough
All pronounced in different ways
English is a dumb language for dumb people. And only the dumbest ones try to police it. I’m sad to be stuck with it. I think I’ll learn Italian just to make mugabe jealous.
why are you still pretending to be a half filipino carpenter from texas?
why are you so ashamed of your race and sexual orientation?
You think I’m from Texas lol?
English is disgusting. I’ve tried learning Spanish and German at various points in my life and I think those are the best European languages. The phonology, correspondence between sounds and spelling, grammar, etc. all make a lot more sense than English.
ever since Afro left ive felt like Melo has been the most confident one here. everyone else tries to be confident, Melo actually is.😄
Melo is trying his best to compensate after he said that russia hacked the US elections lol.
Depends on what you mean by “hacked” did they try to influence by infiltrating our media? Duh. Did they actually hack our elections with a computer? Less duh, but still likely considering all of the evidence. You’d have to be extremely credulous to think otherwise.
But of course multiple Professionals have already thought you had autism so it doesn’t surprise me that you lack the social intelligence to recognize these hard facts.
why “genEtic” but “genItive”?
steve shoe has made this mistake. he just dismissed it as unimportant.
whatever your CV, if you do the genitive wrong i think…
your CV is CMV.
sad!
you saw this with clinton vs bush.
despite his much lower IQ, bush said “between you and ME”.
whereas clinton said “between you and i”.
my dad claimed that he’d read a lot of books on theology and the only press which got it right was harvard’s.
it’s jesus’s fucktards not jesus’.
Pumpkin, since IQtest.dk is said by the creators to be inspired by RAPM, and was created during a time where Mensa used the RAPM, could you use the RAPM norm sheet to extrapolate ?
“Thomas’s grades at Holy Cross were in the top 7% of his class”
As if Blacks don’t get better grades from teachers just for being Black. You need to account for that.
I’ve noticed that your commenters are getting smarter puppy. Its definitely not related to the content of your articles which is going the other way.
It’s funny how much people cynically repeat this on alt-right websites. I’m not saying this never happens, but I doubt Clarence Thomas would’ve been below the top 10% or 15% even if he were white. Admittedly, humanities subjects (which I think Thomas probably majored in) tend to allow for a lot of subjectivity.
It’s not like it doesn’t happen. It just doesn’t happen a lot.
The mental gymnastics alt reichers go through are hilarious. I’ve seen similar with penis size. Some white nationalists try and deny the self report data because apparently “blacks lie more”.
But blacks do lie more. Its a pretty well known thing.
Is there actual data on it?
Personally I believe there are racial differences in penis size but at the median they’re pretty small. Just in same way women with the biggest, most muscular protruding asses tend to be black, but the median black woman doesn’t have a much larger ass than the average white woman when you control for BMI.
I have no problem saying that blacks probably have a larger penis on average. It fits in with Rushtons theory and seems to be related to their higher T levels.
“I’ve seen similar with penis size. Some white nationalists try and deny the self report data because apparently “blacks lie more”.”
They’re referring to reports on drug use when they get hospitalized. I’ll leave links later. It’s true that blacks lie more but everyone lies about penis size and the data is straight garbage.
“I have no problem saying that blacks probably have a larger penis on average. It fits in with Rushtons theory and seems to be related to their higher T levels.”
Why keep repeating Rushton’s lies?
“but the median black woman doesn’t have a much larger ass than the average white woman when you control for BMI.”
Source?
Melo
“Black Americans also frequently underreport and lie about their drug use (Ledgerwood et al, 2008; Lu et al, 2001). Blacks are also more likely to go to the ER after abusing drugs than whites (Drug Abuse Warning Network, 2011). Bauman and Ennett (1994) also found that blacks underreport drug use whereas whites overreport.”
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2018/02/10/steroid-mythconceptions-and-racial-differences-in-steroid-use/
Okay so they lie more about drug use. But does that mean they’re more likely to lie about any given topic (not just drug use) compared to Eurasians? I imagine the “snitches get stitches” attitude is more prevalent in black communities so I’m not surprised if they lie about illegal activities. Intuitively I always assumed East Asians were the biggest liars in general albeit that’s simply from my anecdotal experiences.
That’s the only data I had on-hand and the only things I know on the matter. A cursory search doesn’t lead me to any articles on who lies more.
Validity of self-report of illicit drug use in young hypertensive urban African American males
A study of 290 African American men in Baltimore, Maryland undergoing treatment for hypertension showed that self-reporting of illicit drug use is unreliable. Only 48 of the participants reported drug use but urine drug tests revealed that 131 had used drugs. The social factors that led these men to lie about their drug use are examined.
See also:
The Validity of Drug Use Reports from Juvenile Arrestees
Race/Ethnicity Differences in the Validity of Self-Reported Drug Use: Results from a Household Survey
machupo, ebola, lassa fever, AIDS, plague…
how much evil is due to free will vs Nature herself?
all of these break out due to sin.
machupo, lassa, plague because rats all over the place.
ebola because eat chimps.
AIDS because eat monkeys and perverted sex and sharing needles.
corona because released from wuhan virology lab or because eating bats or because eating other animals that should just be left alone.
You can’t guess anyone’s IQ on their academics. Here’s why:
Grade inflation/deflation blurs the lines between top-achieving students and average students. So does grading on a curve.
https://education.cu-portland.edu/blog/classroom-resources/how-grade-inflation-hurts-students/
https://blogs.swarthmore.edu/burke/blog/2012/08/23/grading-on-the-curve-is-always-a-bad-idea/
http://www.brilliant-insane.com/2014/05/7-reasons-teachers-should-stop-grading-their-students-forever.html
They won’t change this because people would drop out and they would lose money.
Sex segregated schools perform better.
HBDers should get rid of “normal” distribution. Nature is rarely neat.
What. I thought the whole point of a grade distribution was to maintain a rank-ordering of students, and then giving a certain number of As, Bs, Cs etc. based on student’s rank. This is fair to me. That’s how it works in law school.
Haha.
“[Standardized] testing was used to support an already-established policy decision rather than to determine a policy, with test results playing a complementary or confirmatory role.”
“Ranking human worth on the basis of how well one competes in academic contests, with the effect that high ranks are associated with … status and power, suggests that psychometrics is premised … on Anglo-American political ideals of rule by the best … and brightest …” https://t.co/0nEXZMSjEN
Garrison, A Measure of Failure
Haha. Oh, G man.
“[Standardized] testing was used to support an already-established policy decision rather than to determine a policy, with test results playing a complementary or confirmatory role.”
“Ranking human worth on the basis of how well one competes in academic contests, with the effect that high ranks are associated with … status and power, suggests that psychometrics is premised … on Anglo-American political ideals of rule by the best … and brightest …”
Garrison, A Measure of Failure
(Post this one.)
im still confused as to how bell curve grading blurs the line between high-achieving and non-high-achieving students. the way its done at my school is that professors are required to have a pre-set median between 3.15 and 3.25 for all examinations. and then a cwrtain number of As, Bs, and Cs are allowed with maximums and minimus numbers for each grade. if theres a vast difference between the highest peforming students and the lowest performing ones, or if there’s a bimodal distribution of grades or something then it doesnt make sense to force to a curve as described above, but if you havs a bunch of people in the middle with a few at the top and the bottom then i dont see a problem with grading based on a normal distribution. it might boost or hurt someones grade slightly but as long as the rank-ordering is tbe same what is tbe big deal…
if you’re saying doing away with grades altogether thats retarded. i know for a fact theres certain classes i wouldnt even study for or even try if it werent for the grade. and sometimes those classes turned out to convey really useful knowledge, i was just too ignorant to realize that at the time…
What I’m saying is that standardized testing justifies social ranks—to justify social value. This can then be seen with “psychometric measurement” on how they rank-order certain groups. It’s baked into the test.
Is there anything wrong with critiquing standardized testing or should we just accept it?
I think at this point you just denying that all men are not created equal. Which is really dumb.
No, I’m not.
What’s wrong with those quotes?
It seems to me that your saying any attempt to rank order humans on any cognitive test is fallacious.
I think grades are important measures of academic success and should be used to rank order students in ability.
I didn’t get good grades. So I know it’s not perfect. But if anything it did demonstrate that I was lazy and unmotivated. So if one thing could change it would be how we approach coaching students on how to rectify their behavior.
We should be able to rank order human behavior because it’s essential in creating a properly functioning human society. Watch RR, I’ll have an actual discussion on ethics with you. It is a natural law of evolution that within a heterogenous species subject to unequal environments, rigid variation exists.
Yes and such unequal environments (in this case, access to information) is why. Such tests were created to justify policy and the social hierarchy—beginning with the SAT. Examinations began in China in the late 1000s if I recall correctly and when the proto-tests were used in France they were then used to support existing policy, not to create any new ones and the same is true for America.
I see what you’re saying about grades and I was the same way. I did horrible on the SAT, but that’s because I went to some trash school, didn’t get taught the information and I got thrown a test with no knowledge of what was on it. I was unprepared.
I went to an alternative school. I didn’t learn a thing there. The classes sucked. The teachers sucked. The “learning environment” sucked. Oh, hey SAT time. So I’m sitting there saying to myself ‘What the hell is all this.’ I forget what I scored (I took the test twice) but I didn’t do good at all.
I’m sure it was like that for you as well.
So showing that “[Standardized] testing was used to support an already-established policy decision rather than to determine a policy, with test results playing a complementary or confirmatory role” means I’m “just denying that all men are not created equal”?
“HBDers should get rid of “normal” distribution. Nature is rarely neat.”
Yea i agree. It’s forced. I’ll elaborate later.
oh god….
and is that avatar really you?? you give off weird loner vibes man
Yes, that is me. What makes you say that I “give off weird loner vibes”? Are you discriminating against me based on my appearance?
Do you understand why traits are sometimes fit to a normal distribution?
Statistical analysis. Are you aware of the numerous critiques of the normal distribution for IQ?
Yes. You’ve repeated them ad nauseam
on this blog and yours.
Do you understand how a normal distribution helps with statistical analysis? And do you realize that while traits like height and intelligence are not normally distributed their distribution isn’t incomparable?
Does it matter when the fact that they’re not distributed in such a way that is devastating for IQ theorists?
It does matter because if you knew then you’d probably understand why it isn’t “devastating”.
Enlighten me.
I feel like it’s important for you to research topics before you make blog posts about them.
Go read the literature and then go add edits to your older posts since you seemingly admit that you don’t know the statistical benefit of fitting data to a normal distribution.
That’s the thing—I’ve read the primary literature. I’ve read the secondary literature. Why do you think I hold the beliefs I do? There are valid reasons for them.
That’s the thing. You don’t know why it’s fitted to a normal distribution so you clearly haven’t read the literature. You just read criticisms and repeat ad verbatim.
That’s not scientific that’s dogmatic
It’s fit to a normal distribution because the early IQ-ists were hereditarians who assumed ‘intelligence’ was genetically determined and thus should form a normal distribution. And the test has to correlate highly with other tests—the Stanford-Binet is usually the ‘benchmark’ by which other tests are ‘validated’ against. It is ASSUMED that the ‘trait’ should be distributed normally; such science. Theodore Micceri looked at hundreds of thousands of test result scores throughout the country and found non-normal distributions. Even Herrnstein and Murray—who made the term famous—provided no justification for the assumption. Seems like many hereditarian assumptions are false but the IQ-ists don’t cede anything. The mark of ideology. IQ is seeped in ideology—from its very beginnings all the way to today.
This is the most ignorant thing I think I’ve ever seen you type. I’m not exaggerating either. Sometimes I disagree with what you say but usually it’s still a respectable opinion that wasn’t just sloppily slapped together. I actually have to think to try and refute it.
This is different. Normal distributions do not imply in any way, shape, or form genetic determinism. The fact that you would even say that proves how uninformed you actually are on the topic. I legitimately expect more from you and you need to rectify this.
No one believes intelligence is normally distributed. A Gaussian curve is a very specific type of distribution and I can guarantee there isn’t a biological trait in existence that follows it. However, that isn’t saying much as the frequency may be positively or negatively skewed but it isn’t going to matter much when making logical inferences from it. It’s forced purely because IQ is not a measure of intelligence but instead of someone’s intelligence relative to their population.
See Mussen and Paul Henry 1973, Bartholomew 2004, and Mackintosh 1998.
Hahaha. OK, so a normal curve has a majority of people clustered in the middle and fewer at both ends. We assume that “intelligence” is in a normal distribution because height is but due to the strong environmental component to height, thus it cannot be normally distributed. Buzsaki and Mizuseki also present numerous data against normal distributions of psychological traits as well—reaction time, sensory acuity, memory word usage and sentence length etc. Murray and Herrnstein call the normal curve “one of nature’s most remarkable uniformities.” It is possible—admitted by Jensen in the g Factor—for test constructors to produce any distribution they want by way of item selection—choose which items the ‘right’ people get right and right people get wrong and they can mold the distribution to be what they please. The assumption from Herrnstein and Murray (and others) is false.
And I find it funny how you get on me for “just [reading] criticisms and [repeating] ad verbatim” yet you paraphrased a stackecxhange thread to me.
I mean you can laugh, but that was a pretty stupid statement you just made. Akin to saying the earth is flat. Normal distributions have to do with central limit there I’m, not genetic determinism. Again, we already know intelligence isn’t normally distributed so I’m not sure why you keep repeating that.
I read that when I was first learning about the subject RR, hence I thought it may help you. I didn’t cite the actual link because,
1. I didn’t think you’d take a post from stack exchange seriously
2. I know you like to read books
Also paraphrasing isn’t as verbatim so…
“We” (you and I) may know it’s not distributed normally but where we diverge is its usefulness. And, as I’m sure you know, most of what I write is in response to Lynn/Jensen/Rushton/Kanazawa/Herrnstein/Murray. And it’s because they were hereditarians and believed intelligence to be a hereditary and transmitted trait that they assumed it should be normally distributed. No “flat earthism” here.
As for your second part, noted.
That’s not why IQ is normally distributed. You literally just made that up.
They’re normally distributed because “intelligence” is assumed to be distributed in this way and it goes back to Binet.
What would the distribution in IQ look like between North and South Koreans?
Central limit theorem***
Ad verbatim***
The distribution is forced through a item selection: include more items that around half the people get right and fewer items people get right and wrong. This means, rather than being a fact about society, it is an artifact of test construction and item selection/analysis and it therefore can tell us nothing about human society.
If the constructors were to have different assumptions then the distribution would look different and it would be changed. See eg Hilliard 2012, Straightening the Bell Curve.
It’d do you good to read The Myth of the Normal Curve ed. by Dudley-Marling and Gurn.
Which of these do you accept or reject? (1) IQ tests ‘tap’ an innate property of individuals? (2) A genetic origin? (3) A measure of capacity? (4) Predictive power? (5) Determining what is measured by correlation? (6) Normal distribution is needed to actualize IQ scores? Just state the numbers you agree with and I’ll know which you disagree with.
How is the hereditarian hypothesis not ad hoc?
i recall advising buying long term US treasuries on leverage. paid off big time. (but not in the way mugabe expected) much better than the stock market over the last 5 years.
lesson: mugabe is always right.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/mar/05/oprah-american-dirt-row-book-club-jeanine-cummins
Oprah in trouble with the latinos. Very sad that you admire this person puppy.
Sad that the Latinx community is policing literature & judging books by the race of the author
Oprah needs to be more respectful of latinos and their wishes
“Thomas is much shorter and more muscular than his fellow elite George H.W. Bush. Height is positively correlated with IQ and weight/height ratio is negatively correlated with IQ.”
Muscles are not bad per se, it’s the way you gain them. If your use conventionally farmed foods and steroids then it correlates with low IQ.
You forgot to adjust for obesity and WHR (waist hip ratio.) If Thomas ate like shit he would already have obesity symptoms and wouldn’t serve in court.
To compare Bush’s and Thomas’s heads, they have to be standing right next to each other.
Better picture
“Muscles are not bad per se, it’s the way you gain them. If your use conventionally farmed foods and steroids then it correlates with low IQ.”
Do you think before you write or do you write what comes to mind first? Sources?
Steroids
Cognitive Deficits in Long-Term Anabolic-Androgenic Steroid Users
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3608708/
Brain and cognition abnormalities in long-term anabolic-androgenic steroid users.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25986964
Cognitive performance and structural brain correlates in long-term anabolic-androgenic steroid exposed and nonexposed weightlifters.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31033318
Conventional Diet
Is Alzheimer’s disease a Type 3 Diabetes? A critical appraisal.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27567931
Relative Intake of Macronutrients Impacts Risk of Mild Cognitive Impairment or dementia
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3494735/#R65
Interplay Between the Gut-Brain Axis, Obesity and Cognitive Function
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5864897/
The Estrogen Hypothesis of Obesity
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0099776
Estrogen is in every mainstream food item
“Cognitive Deficits in Long-Term Anabolic-Androgenic Steroid Users”
“In men reporting AAS use, the interviewer determined as accurately as possible their a) age at onset of AAS use; b) maximum weekly dose of AAS, expressed as mg of testosterone equivalent, calculated as we (Kanayama et al., 2009b, 2003; Pope and Katz, 1994) and others (Pope and Katz, 2003) have done in past studies; c) lifetime average weekly dose of AAS; d) total lifetime weeks of AAS exposure; and e) time of most recent AAS use.”
Self-reports are straight trash for weight loss studies (Mann et al, 2007 have a solid review)—why should I accept these reports?
A better study would be longitudinal, test when they’re young and then again when they’re older and periodically track them, test them (not ask for self-reports) and then retest again at a later age.And cross-sectional designs don’t allow one to infer causation—like Mendelian Randomization studies.
“Brain and cognition abnormalities in long-term anabolic-androgenic steroid users.”
Both Kenayama studies suffer from the same pitfalls. I’m not saying that AAS use does not cause apopsis of neurons, just that their limitations are numerous and call into question their results. Sure AAS users are a small segment of the population, but these studies aren’t representative; they suffer from fatal methodological flaws; Yes, abusing drugs is bad. Yes, drugs screw your mind and brain up. That AAS use causes apoptosis of the neurons doesn’t mean that safe, effective AAS use can cause neuroregeneration—and I am aware of one case report in the literature on the matter.
I agree that Alz disease is type III diabetes.
One 12-year follow-up showed no strong association with cognitive function in 70-year olds who followed a “WHO-like diet”, a “Mediterranean-like diet” and a “low-carb diet.”
In any case, eating garbage food leads to poor outcomes—it changes the diversity and percentage of the microbiota in the body. Grantham and Henneberg have a hypothesis—has it been tested? It’s plausible and I can see a variant of it being true.
But… as I was rereading the paper (I’m familiar with the papers you linked and the literature), I saw:
“Aside from a simple matter of caloric intake, there appears to be other characters in the story of weight gain. The influence of soy on contributing to weight gain has been recently established [20]. Authors of this finding have cited xenoestrogens contained within soy products as a likely culprit [20]. Perhaps, in societies with particularly high dietary saturation of soy, this works to “feminise” the males. If such a fact was substantiated, the soy exposure would allow men in those communities to artificially imitate the female pattern of weight gain. Interestingly, the United States, the largest consumer of soy products per capita in the entire world, belong to a select group in which male obesity rates outstrip those of their female counterparts [3], [21].”
Yea…. soy doesn’t “feminize” males.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/10/28/no-soy-does-not-feminize-males/
The current xenoestrogen scare is idiotic. A positive energy balance is needed to become obese. Even IF such things had an effect on weight gain (note that I am not discounting hormonal effects on obesity), one would NOT be able to gain weight without eating more than they burned.
(I think that AD-36 is a good candidate for non-human causes of obesity. The research certainly is interesting. https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/08/12/is-obesity-caused-by-a-virus/)
But I’m more interested in your takes on these papers. What do you think of them?
The steroids and the carb stuff is self explanatory. You’re right about the xenoestrogens. I should have specified that I was talking about hormones in meat rather than in plants. All animals have hormones and the more you eat them the more estrogen you get. People usually eat only muscle meat and not the organs. Organ meat should prevent people from ingesting too many hormones because the organs have more nutrition.
The virus theory is very interesting.
I think most of the studies are fine minus the one’s you debunked.
That definitely is a much better picture for comparison even if the two people are not at the same exact distance.
Picture craniologists—hilarious. Just like gondwanaman with his dumb claim that I “give off weird loner vibes.”
wow it seems i mightve offended you. i was being silly and maybe projecting. im a bit of a loner too. im also a bit fascinated by your dedication to certain topics and refuting certain HBD “facts” and presumptions. you seem like someone with a lot of mental energy and focus relative to your IQ. im kinda the opposite….
Haha no worries. I am a loner though. Good observation.
“you seem like someone with a lot of mental energy and focus relative to your IQ.”
This should give you pause, then.
PP I’m writing an article on Murray’s claims on race in his new book. Would you publish here?
As long as it’s respectful. I don’t want to offend a (sometimes) reader as important as Murray
Of course it will be respectful.
Really quickly on the matter:
Murray, in my reading, assumes that clusters are races. He discusses Li et al and Rosenberg et al. He gives a good overview of STRUCTURE and Rosenberg’s paper (Hardimon’s analysis and discussion of Rosenberg is better). But Murray then discussed the Li et al results saying that when they set K to 7 that Middle Easterners and North Africans had their own cluster, though they were still right bear Europeans.
Races are clusters but not all clusters are races. I like how Murray discussed K = 7 from Li et al but he doesn’t discusses K = 6 from Rosenberg et al. When they ran K = 6, the Kalash appeared as a cluster.
To Murray, this would mean they’re a race since he had given NO conditions on which clusters WOULD count as a race. The fact that Murray assumes ME/NA people are separate races based on the K = 7 run shows just how clueless Murray is. He wants to dispense with the term “race” and use “ancestral groups” or “population.” But we don’t need to dispense with the term.
This shows that Murray’s philosophy of race is empty. His assumptions, from my reading, that ALL clusters identified in these runs is patently false and his assumptions (with a lack of argumentation, just with “commonsense”) means that Murray has no reasoning for his inclusion of which group is or is not a race. Murray, too, falls prey to Fish’s response on race to Jensen as well.
I will send the article tomorrow.
Okay, i like where you’re going with it but don’t use terms like “clueless” in the article, obviously
Would “not knowledgeable on the matter” be better? I need a way to signify his ignorance of the literature.
Incorrect or uninformed are better adjectives
Here’s the book.
https://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=0EAB831B8F0411506CDF8658D31AA03C
I personally think it’s boring. I’ve read the gender and race sections and the social class section is last. He focuses way too much on sex differences and I don’t think Murray is too knowledgeable there. The race section is a bore. He doesn’t really discuss IQ.
If one wants to read books from people who know what they’re talking about on the subjects Murray discussed in his book, read:
Sex/gender:
Pink Brain, Blue Brain — Lise Eliot
Myths of Gender — Anne Fausto-Sterling
Race:
Rethinking Race: The Case for Deflationary Realism — Michael Hardimon
What Is Race?: Four Philosophical Views — Joshua Glasgow; Sally Haslanger; Chike Jeffers; Quayshawn Spencer
Social class:
Class Counts — Erik Wright
When Murray discusses what the “orthodoxy” says about the biological basis of race, he is not fair to the social constructivist position. He hasn’t outright said it, but I believe that Murray thinks that social constructivists are anti-realists about race. In actuality, social constructivists about race are realists about race (Spencer, 2012; Kaplan and Winther, 2014). For if they were anti-realists, what would they have to discuss? Race is real, to the constructivist, and the effects of racism have biological effects.
Murray didn’t discuss Mills (2017) who discusses Seasrdic’s and Wade’s interpretation of Rosenberg. Whole acknowledging that Rosenberg et al are bio-genomic/cluster realists, Mills states that Sesardic and Wade use the phrasing from Rosenberg to go from cluster realism to their own biological racial realism (Kaplan and Winther, 2014). Mills’ critique doesn’t undercut the arguments from Hardimon and Spencer but it does undercut Murray’s concept.
Since race is so important to Murray’s grift, why didn’t he discuss any philosophy of race? The race debate is semantic/philosophical, not one about biology.
Facial structure is more important than skin color. Smaller but strong jaw (protruding chin)= more intelligent. Higher/sharper cheekbones = more intelligent The top half supports the bigger/denser brain.
I can only assume you don’t think before you write.
If oprah was smart she would run for president because trump basically can’t say anything against a black woman without the jew media going crazy and calling him a racist.
Can you imagine a debate between Trump and Oprah? Trump would basically talk like a mature person again.
are You kidding trump launched his political career questioning Obama’s citizenship. He’s not scared of being called racist. He thrives on it.
Trump is a troll so he gets to say whatever he wants but oprah would be held to a higher standard
Also she’s far richer than Trump and if she mentioned that he’d cry like a baby.
This is definitely one of the dumber things Philo has said. It’s like when Pumpkin tried claiming that Tina Fey was the reason McCain lost the election.
All publicity is good publicity and Trump has made his presidential brand off of insulting people more intelligent than him with stereotypical boomer humor that appeals to Alt-Reichers.
Oprah wouldn’t just be off limits no matter what the media says. Trump found the perfect loop-hole by simply screeching “REEEEE fAkE NeWs!”.
Though maybe she would win simply because she’s vastly more socially intelligent than Trump.
Warren should endorse Sanders and run with him as VP. Makes total sense. She needs to fire all those obama establishment goons that told her to be more moderate
Thank you!
It’s a joke. Bernie was bound to be the man until Super Tuesday. None of the people my age came out to vote despite them all bitching and whining on twitter about Trump for 4 years, and now Bloomberg, Bootygay and that one white bitch all dropped out and gave Biden their full support. So unless warren supports Bernie his chances of winning the primary are slim.
Doesn’t help the fact that Bernie has been constantly shafted by the media. The Democratic Party would rather have Trump win than accept Bernie.
I wonder if this will cause a split within the party like when Trump become the Republican front-runner? Either way I feel betrayed despite it really not being a surprising outcome. At this point I’m so disgruntled I’d literally vote for Trump before I see a corporate puppet with Alzheimer’s pretending like he gives a fuck about my problems while running the country into the ground.
Then again, Trump isn’t any different. At least Hillary still had most of her cognitive faculties. This election is going to be an even bigger shit-show.
Its ironic that the establishment, which includes a lot of jews, is against a jew being president.
Which more or less proves it’s always been about class not race.
More proof that Anti-Semitic conspiracies are garbage.
More nonsensical HBD studies:
https://www.zerohedge.com/health/chinese-scientists-find-genetic-explanation-coronavirus-discriminating-race
https://eginotes.wordpress.com/2020/03/06/the-alliances-circular-firing-squad/
“A sample size of eight with one 55yo Asian male and one 21yo African-American male. 🙄”
“And which are exactly the genetic similarities between iranians and chinese? And what happens with thailand, bangladesh, indonesia? Shouldn’t they be dying like flies?”
“let’s not mention Iran and Italy okay?”
“No conclusion can be drawn from a test of only 8 samples.”
“Vintage HBD. That is how HBD works – they start with the conclusion they want, and then work backwards to attempt to justify their preconceived notions, with cherry picked data, bizarre interpretations, assumptions (“reasonable to infer” – right, “rock stars?”), absurdly small sample sizes, hand waving “spin,” etc. That may or may not be good politics, but it is certainly not scholarship and is certainly not science.” -Ted Sallis
This atrocious study was made by our Chinese overlords. They are surely the apex of humanity spreading misinformation that will kill more people. They’re so smart being figured out by the common man. They’re so smart with their high corruption despite the fact that non-corruption is linked to high IQ. It’s almost like the data has been manipulated.
HBD crumbles once more:
Serum estrogen, but not testosterone, levels differ between black and white men in a nationally representative sample of Americans.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17456570
Racial/ethnic differences in serum sex steroid hormone concentrations in US adolescent males.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23354421
This one says that Mexican-Americans have higher testosterone. Who are Mexicans admixed with? East Asians who crossed the Bering Sea Strait. The heirarchy is either wrongly inversed or scrambled.
HBD must be purged of liars and reborn. Otherwise we will never see the truth.
Yea I’ve been critiquing this for years. Rushton/Lynn/Ellis don’t know what they’re talking about.
Here’s what I consider to be my “master article” on race/testosterone/aggression/prostate cancer.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2018/01/28/race-testosterone-aggression-and-prostate-cancer/
“HBD must be purged of liars and reborn”
But the main players in “HBD” are liars…
So you get rid of the main players and create new ones. Godfather style bruh.
Like who? All of the older ones are dying and the newer ones still pretty much take their BS. There are “HBDers” out there (sports scientists) who understand the variation and the physiology etc behind it. Those are who “HBDers” should discuss, not idiots like Rushton/Lynn/Jensen/Kanazawa/Ellis/Hart/Templer et al.
You, I, Pumpkin. Shit if Mugabe didn’t have brains damage he could probably give something of value to the up and coming HBDers.
If you focused less on your autistic attack on IQ tests you could actually contribute. You’re still an HBDer right?
I didn’t write about IQ for like 8 months until I went on a trip since September. I’m getting bored with it again and am returning to physiology/race/DST etc. I think people should read actual physiologists and the like and not psychologists with clear motivations.
HBD must be purged of liars and reborn. Otherwise we will never see the truth.
It’s pretty much true of every field.
But if Dutton is right, even PiPi’s hero Rushton was dishonest.
“But if Dutton is right, even PiPi’s hero Rushton was dishonest.”
Dutton is right about Rushton. But Dutton still defends CWT so… (And it’s been known that Rushton is dishonest for almost 35 years now.)
You idiot. South, Central, and North Americans have been separated from their Asian counterparts for thousands of years. Also, take into account sexual selection and you’ll find that physical and mental traits can change within a population within a sudden frame of time.
Also, Polynesians and Maori and a variety of people who descend from East Asians or Aborigine people in East Asia are known for having T levels outstandingly higher than their ancestors.
To further that point, Aborigines in Australia have testosterone levels significantly higher than their Indian ancestors as well.
Basically, any rigorous migrations from one place to another will increase T levels, according to historical analyses.
Finally, I want to emphasize that traits are fluid in terms of how quickly they can change. One trait may be present for a short while in small degrees and then can proliferate suddenly. This is how most of evolution works. Just look at most wild animals and how they can be domesticated in a matter of generations.
“Also, Polynesians and Maori and a variety of people who descend from East Asians or Aborigine people in East Asia are known for having T levels outstandingly higher than their ancestors.
To further that point, Aborigines in Australia have testosterone levels significantly higher than their Indian ancestors as well.
Basically, any rigorous migrations from one place to another will increase T levels, according to historical analyses.”
People make a ton of unreferenced claims here.
Native Americans have a complex origin than what most people would think, they have an Ancient North Eurasian component which forms around 40% of their ancestry. That and you are looking at concentrations. Manlets and people with smaller bodies will have less blood and hence a higher concentration of testosterone.
*more complex origin
“Native Americans have a complex origin than what most people would think, they have an Ancient North Eurasian component which forms around 40% of their ancestry.”
What’s the rest?
“Manlets and people with smaller bodies will have less blood and hence a higher concentration of testosterone.”
Source?
“What’s the rest?”
Mostly some kind of divergent east Asian, though some natives of south America have elevated affinity for Australasians (Australomelanesians + Andaman islanders).
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959437X16300910?via%3Dihub
“Source”
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0020533
Not exactly testosterone, but it includes a hormone associated with sperm production.
That’s not a source for the claim though.
I know, couldn’t find a study on the specific topic so I posted the closest I had to it.
One think I really like about Thomas is that his opinions are actually readable. Scalia’s are too. Not sure why Mugabe thinks he was incompetent.
I’ve never been impressed by dense jargon-ey writing. It’s annoying.
I’m just befuddled by the fact that whites think they’re not racist…literally all whites had ancestors that were racist. How are they going to pretend like they fixed the “problem” and aren’t racist within a matter of years???
Also, whites are only likable because they give off a pretense that they’re agreeable. They’re literally the most disagreeable race there is and they’re also hell-bent on domination far more extreme than any Jew.
This is why no one except for whites has any flack with the Jews, only whites. The white man will crumble, mark my words…
^^ Needs help.
Andrew Yang employed prohibitive in the 3 acception wich doesn’t exist in French equivalent word : Joe Biden is our prohibitive nominee.
I don’t know if it’s frequently used.
Definition of prohibitive
1 : tending to prohibit or restrain
2 : tending to preclude use or purchase
prohibitive costs
3 : almost certain to perform as predicted
a prohibitive favorite
I was very glad to learn a new word meaning thanks to Yang !