Professor Black Truth is a youtube personality who reminds me of a black version of “Philosopher” and other alt-right extremists. Just as Philosopher thinks Ashkenazi elites conspire to undermine white interests (by propping up blacks), professor Black Truth thinks the elite serves white interests and conspires to oppress blacks (by propping up tools for white supremacy).
I estimate Professor Black Truth to be more verbally intelligent than 99.75% of Americans (verbal IQ 142(U.S. norms)) but he draws bad conclusions on social issues. He thinks Michael Jackson was innocent and has yet to progress beyond Chomsky talking points when it comes to U.S. foreign policy.
Estimated social IQ? 104 (slightly above the U.S. average)
Estimated overall IQ? About 128 (higher than 97% of America).
Of course that’s very rough because as a listener I can only observe his verbal skills and social understanding, not the many other abilities that are also part of intelligence.
In my opinion he is bitter that his high IQ didn’t take him as far in life as he thought it would and is resentful of the patronizing praise he probably got from much less intelligent white frat boys in college. Unlike Obama (who he views as a closet homosexual), his high IQ probably made him more of a freak than a star, and so he rationalizes his modest success by viewing Obama and other black elites as tools for white supremacy,
Despite his flawed analysis, he’s an extremely talented broadcaster with a darkly entertaining exaggerated delivery, much like a comic book villain. In this episode he accuses Ocasio-Cortez of being an anti-black bigot:
Pumpkin Person 
What causes health disparities between blacks and whites?
Mostly genetic. Blacks, similar to American Indians, are relative newcomers to agriculturalized society and hence are metabolically less able to process refined sugar sources, which contributes to high levels of diabetes and hypertension. Also, blacks are more prone to autoimmune diseases such as lupus. The thinking here is that tropical environments are more rife with infection and parasites, hence they have evolved more vigilant immune systems, a double edged sword which results in higher frequency of the immune system attacking the person. Also, sickle cell disease is thought to be a defense against malaria.
I love how generic determinists jump at the it’s “Mostly genetic” claim. For example, Non, Gravlee, and Mulligan showed that, for example, education and not ancestry accounted for BP disparities between the races. Social variables should be discussed first. I don’t know why people immediately go for genetics, when we can and should change things to see the relationship it has in the variable in question. I don’t deny race-related differences in genes, in part, accounting for disease disparities between races. But, for example Rosenberg et al is on noncoding DNA so we need to look elsewhere to find the differences.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2019/05/18/health-by-state-and-racial-discrimination-by-physicians/
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2019/05/05/race-medicine-and-epigenetics/
And I have a piece on lupus and race.
Lupus is two to three times more likely to occur in women of color—blacks, Hispanics/Latinos, Native Americans, and others—compared to white Americans. Somers et al (2014) state that lupus affects 1 in 537 black women, “with black patients experiencing earlier age at diagnosis, >2-fold increases in SLE incidence and prevalence, and increased proportions of renal disease and progression to ESRD as compared to white patients.” However, Somers et al (2016) note that medical records may be poor or missing while the reliability of diagnosis is low for non-whites and non-blacks. They also note that race and ethny data in the US is based on self-ID for the parents and child on the birth certificate, but self-ID has almost a perfect relationship with geographic ancestry (i.e., race) (Tang et al, 2005).
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2019/05/05/lupus-and-race-ethnicity/
I find it strange how he says it’s mostly genetic and then proceeds to list phenotypic reasons for Black’s poorer health.
“I find it strange how he says it’s mostly genetic and then proceeds to list phenotypic reasons for Black’s poorer health.”
He is assuming a direct line from genotype to phenotype—delusional.
Also see here for why we should abandon reductionist takes on genes and disease.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2020/01/14/genes-and-disease-reductionism-and-knockouts/
I also have a piece on agriculture, too. A lot of confusion there.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/01/15/agriculture-and-diseases-of-civilization/
I assume you want any misfortune of blacks to somehow be the fault or design of white people.
I assume that you’re attempting to disregard structural inequalities between social groups that contribute to health inequalities between these groups. We can, for example, assume race is socially constructed and study, for example, the effects of racism in people’s psychological and eventually physical health. Learn about food deserts and access to nutritious food and get back to me. Try reading some sociology of medicine as well.
structural inequalities between social groups
doesn’t mean anything. you sound retarded.
let’s compare rich negroes who live sourrounded by whites to rich whites. then you will still see high blood pressure and some other stuff because even rich negroes eat shit and are much more likely to be vitamin d deficient in north america.
rr: but negroes eat shit because food desert because segregation blah blah blah…
mugabe: no one needs to eat shit. this is the one thing corey booker did that was good. he proved it was possible to eat healthfully on foodstamps or whatever. it wasn’t easy, but was possible.
but as i’ve detailed so many times [redacted by pp, april 9, 2020]. because you have very dark skin which makes you vit d deficient outside the tropics doesn’t mean your high blood pressure is genetic. you can take vit d supplements and you wouldn;t have the problem if you lived in the tropics.
You use the term “genetic” to apply only to independent genetic effects. Fraz is talking about gene-environment interactions (i.e. hunter-gatherers reared in industrialized society) although not sure that makes sense because Africa’s had agriculture for thousands of years.
Mugabe, racial differences in BP are more likely to be Explained by education and not genetic ancestry.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3464817/
gates: all the world’s problems woud be solved if the central african empire had more computers.
soros: all the world’s problems would be solved if a billion africans invaded europe.
oprah: all the world’s problems would be solved if a billion africans invaded europe and gave the europeans better day time talk shows for morbidly obese lesbians of color.
rr: africans need to move to germany (but not sicily) because magic dirt.
mugabe: you’re all morons who need me inside you.
Oprah built her empire appealing to blond blue eyed straight female suburban boomers who would watch with their mothers & daughters.
Black lesbians preferred the Jerry Springer show
and then there’s the FACT rr refused to post on his blog because he is a FRAUD and gay…
all cause mortality went DOWN during the great depression. this same effect of poverty increasing life expectancy was seen in greece during WW II.
rr has ZERO historical orientation so he thinks, “poor people die because less access to the big medicine or non-shitty food or personal trainers or whatever…”
in FACT, medicine has almost nothing to do with life expectancy in the developed world.
working class british of the victorian era who lived to 20 lived almost as long as working class brits do today and not because contemporary working class brits are especially short lived, but because working class victorians lived much longer than dummkopfs like rr suppose.
RR IS A FRAUD AND A BEARDED LADY!
Off topic and random question, but what would some g-loaded general knowledge questions for college grads be (can have US cultural bias). Can you limit them to one topic ideally (e.g. science, history, entertainment, etc.)? If so, which trivia topic would be best?
David Wechsler felt the best general knowledge questions were those that the average person with average opportunity had a chance to acquire for himself.
But if you had to limit it to one subject, knowledge of math or science would probably correlate most with g but the correlation would be indirect. Those with the most g are more likely to enter STEM fields and thus have the opportunity to acquire STEM knowledge.
Puppy says everyone that doesn’t watch cnn is an ‘extremist’.
13:50. At least he has the social IQ to understand that AIDS was spread by reckless promiscuity. I’ll bet most leftists are too brainwashed to see the connection.
So loaded can say the word nigger but I can’t. Why?
Context matters
I was asking him a question. How is that offensive to you?
Pill, would you ever use the word in front of a black person to antagonize them?
I’ve used both variations of the word, spoken directly to them while using it, and either paid the consequences or really hurt the other person.
So until you grow a pair and decide to use it how you’re using it in front of someone whom you could antagonize with, preferably a black person, I would say don’t say it on here either…
Of course. Id tell them theyre a [redacted by pp, april 9, 2020].
And how would you react if they got violent?
Would you just keep hurling the word in their direction or shut your mouth and apologize? I’ve done both so it’ll be interesting to see your answer.
I think the term for people like you is sand nigger.
Wow, okay, I see…
Lil pilly wants to fight me…bring it on you coward!
I did not think his rhetorical skills were all that advanced. Quite pedestrian in fact. He’s probably right about AOC, to some degree. She’s probably much more concerned about Hispanics than blacks or any other group. Blacks are in for a rude awakening when the United States tips majority nonwhite and hispanic because Asians, Hispanics and other eastern nonwhites have none of the sentimental compassion for blacks that “white supremacists” have. Nonblack minorities are pragmatic and concerned about their own interests.
Whites will still have a lot of political power. With automation, the IQ requirement for a job is going up and most non-whites won’t be able to compete.
[redacted by pp, april 9, 2020]
Pooro Rican AOC claims to have sub-saharan ancestry since Spain brought west africans to extract the gold mines on the island.
She says she has a few but not enough to make her ”blaaaaaaaack”. She made that very clear
Rarely do you find large areas of black specimens in Latin America, because unlike Anglo America’s White Supremacy enforcement of stark racial segregation, mixing between the proletariat groups are common.
She’s also part Jew.
“Rarely do you find large areas of black specimens in Latin America”
Colombia, Guatemala (the Garifuna), Dominicans (high black African maternal ancestry), some Puerto Ricans (they have a high majority of white ancestry though, there are many pockets of black populations). I don’t recall if they’d count as “large”, but “Latin America” is a linguistic-geographic term.
I wouldn’t doubt that AOC has a good portion of African ancestry.
I find AOC pretty hot. I would.
sorry.
or as canuckistanis say SORE-EE.
i meant that if you actually gave the WAIS or any other IQ test to the world’s richest…
the hedgistanis and the private equity people would have the highest average score…
but this might just point out a falut in IQ tests.
and this only because the hedgistanis need to be a mile wide and an inch deep…they need to know enough about everything…
just look up “charlie rose soros” and “charlie rose gates” and you’ll see what i mean.
i envy their wealth and power, but i don’t envy them…because i know…
to be them i’d have to be a totally different person…
a person who would be superior in some ways, but inferior in others…
but in a just world the pictures bezos took of his little bezos would be…i would post them right here!
If the Forbes 400 took the WAIS-R (the last version before wechsler died and they ruined it) Gates would probably score 160, Soros 150, Oprah 140, Bloomberg 130, and Trump 120. Soros would probably do better for his age than Gates on the subtests autistic types struggle with (Comprehension, Picture Arrangement, Picture Completion & Digit Symbol) but Gates would obliterate Soros on Arithmetic, Block Design & Object Assembly.
Oprah lol
soros lol
Ryan Faulk (possibly semi seriously) said that bloomberg is a 115 to 120 IQ high midwit afaik. This is at odds with your estimation. What do you have to say about his estimation?
Possible, but unlikely. That would make him likely the dumbest Jewish self-made decabillionaire in America
Pumpkin, who do you think the dumbest jewish decabillionaire there is if it isnt Bloomberg?
PP still thinks that IQ causes/influences SES/income/whateveryouwannacallit.
Education and SES predict outcomes without IQ but IQ doesn’t predict outcomes without education and SES, therefore it’s not likely that IQ causes/influences SES. IQ doesn’t predict income independently from parental SES and education.
IQ doesn’t predict income independently from parental SES and education.
Murray already proved IQ predicts income among siblings raised in the same family.
As for IQ predicting outcomes independently of education, one of the ways IQ causes success is by causing education. Nonetheless, even after IQ has caused education, it still has some causal potency leftover among those with the same schooling. Waller 1971 & Bajema 1968 both showed that IQ predicts occupation independently of education (0.21 & 0.15 respectively).
The Terman study found IQ at age 10 predicted lifetime earnings independently of education:
IQ is rewarded in the labor market, independently of education. Most of the effect of personality and IQ on life-time earnings arise late in life, during the prime working years. Therefore, estimates from samples with shorter durations underestimate the treatment effects.
We’ve already discussed that Murray was confounded due to birth order effects.
As for IQ and predicting independent outcomes, if this is indeed the case, why doesn’t IQ predict anything without education/parental SES? That, then, is where the “causal power” of IQ comes from—it’s not there alone (as is the case for education/parental SES).
As for Terman, question-begging:
“But what happens when both social class and IQ are equated? What predicts life success? Stephen Ceci reanalyzed the data from Terman’s Termites (the term coined for those in the study) and found something quite different from what Terman had assumed. There were three groups in Terman’s study—group A, B, and C. Groups A and C comprised the top and bottom 20 percent of the full sample in terms of life success. So at the start of the study, all of the children “were about equal in IQ, elementary school grades, and home evaluations” (Ceci, 1996: 82). Depending on the test used, the IQs of the children ranged between 142 to 155, which then decreased by ten points during the second wave due to regression and measurement error. So although group A and C had equivalent IQs, they had starkly different life outcomes. (Group B comprised 60 percent of the sample and enjoyed mediocre life success.)
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2020/02/16/herrnsteins-syllogism/
Birth order isn’t confounding anything
It’s correlation with IQ is too small
Ceci didn’t look at lifetime earnings so his analysis is worthless
(Post this comment not the other.)
did Ceci not show that income is a function of SES/education and not IQ? Oh yea, also:
Evidently, the genetic inheritance of IQ is not the mechanism which reproduces the structure of social status and economic privilege from generation to generation. Though our estimates provide no alternative explanation, they do suggest that an explanation of intergeneration immobility may well be found in aspects of family life related to socio-economic status and in the effects of socio-economic background operating both directly on economic success, and indirectly via the medium of inequalities in educational attainments.
https://sci-hub.tw/10.2307/1927525
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
So, Ceci showed, with Terman’s own data, that social class was the predictor of income, not IQ, and then using Project Talent, showed the same again when parental SES/education was held constant. For each year of school completed by the Project Talent participants, there was a subsequent increase in income. Those who were in the top of the heap when it came to years of schooling completed were in the top of the heap were ten times more likely to be receiving incomes in the top of the heap, compared to those who were at the bottom in terms of years of schooling. But this isn’t due to IQ since the same result is found when IQ is controlled.
Speaking of IQ of various people, what is your estimate of Faulk’s IQ pp? I think that he is probably 10 points behind you.
Why do you say that the WAIS was ruined?
Because they removed/marginalized three of the best subtests
Yes, the black announcer on the youtube video is correct in the sense that non-black minorities in America “hate” blacks in a capitalistic society founded on White Supremacy.
It’s because black americans demonstrate anti-capital culture outside of their consumerist behavior (black neighborhoods tend to have lower rates of business upstarts from their own specimens). He doesn’t say this, because he is anti-capitalism like most black americans who only and often blindly serve as consumers/the exploited and not exploiters.
Melo we haven’t argued for weeks. Let’s argue about something. Choose a random topic.
Pumpkin, would you say dumb people have little to no EGI?
It depends: if you’re from a privileged ethnic group, dumb people will have more EGI because they’re driven by instinct and can’t understand abstract concepts like justice, morality and suffering of others.
But if you’re from an oppressed ethnic group, smart people will have more EGI because they understand their people have been screwed over and can pursue their instincts guilt free, without compromising more abstract goals.
EGI explains both outcomes? So it explains why “dumb people” have EGI while “smart people” are explained away with EGI too? So what’s the use of it? “He is X ethny so he helps him because genetic similarity”? What would falsify this simplistic “theory”?
“can’t understand abstract concepts like justice, morality and suffering of others.”
Yea, this is doing a ton of lifting here and I’d like some evidence for the assertion.
It’s not proven rr it’s just a theory
Face the facts PP: Ceci showed that, even if IQ tests “measure” “intelligence” that it’s better to be born rich than “smart.” Adn the fact is that parental, mostly maternal, treatment influenced income in the cited analysis, which is more evidence that its social reasons for the causes of income within families, not “IQ” (which you’ve yet to answer how IQ is caudally efficacious when it comes to income and anything, anyway). Do “smarter” people think faster and so they can access greater information on a shorter amount of time so they can they figure out the solution to a problem quicker than a lower IQ person? How would this then be tested to show that this is the case if that is what you believe? The game that Murray has been playing for the last 26 years is cute, we know what he’s doing. It’s cute how you defend these kinds of analyses “IQ is the cause of success! These people were just born better and that’s why they’re so successful!!” when the evidence points to education/social background as the cause of success, not some reified “thing” called “IQ.”
I agree it’s better to be born rich than smart, but life itself is largely an IQ test, so it’s dumb to deny IQ has independent predictive power
I deny that it has independent predictive power because if it did, IQ would have predictive power sans education/parental SES but that’s not what we find.
RR I just provided studies showing its independent predictive power but I guess if they’re not written by Ceci, they don’t count
Give me the references. Did they control for parental SES/education and then see if IQ predicts? Ceci showed that parental SES and education predicted income when IQ was held constant, so did the analyses you referred to do so?
Of course SES & education have independent effects on income but that doesn’t preclude IQ from having independent effects too.
I already told you what they controlled for
Waller accounted for 8 percent of variance with IQ (which could go either way), leaving 92 percent variance unexplained. But I forgot—low correlations (.29 in this case) are impressive for hereditarians. And Bajema had 88 percent left unexplained—why are hereditarians impressed with such low correlations and “explained” variance?
I’m impressed by such low correlations because:
1) small correlations add up. Given a 0.29 correlation, for every 1 SD increase in success (holding other variables constant), IQ will on average increase 0.29 SD.
2) the small correlations are usually underestimates because success is subjective and very hard to reliably measure (income fluctuates radically from year to year and doesn’t peak until middle age).
3) it’s to be expected that IQ will have only modest predictive power independent of education because modern society makes sure almost all high IQ people go to university, so if almost all educated people have similar IQs and similar success, by definition IQ can not predict much of the variance in success because there isn’t as much variance in that group.
4) low correlations between IQ and success holding education constant are misleading because someone with a 90 IQ who gets a law degree probably has some other extraordinary trait that allowed him to get a law degree despite the low IQ (i.e. extraordinary motivation), and this special trait may also make him successful in life. Similarly, a high school dropout with an IQ of 130 might not be more successful than the average IQ 85 high school dropout, because in order to not complete high school with such a high IQ, you probably have something wrong with you (i.e. mental illness). Thus the only way to truly to detect the causal role IQ plays in success independently of education is to do an experiment where people of all IQ levels were RANDOMLY given different levels of schooling.
Now, with all of this said: In virtue of what is IQ causally efficacious? HOW does IQ cause income? HOW does answering multiple choice knowledge questions, solving matrices and putting blocks together translate to “intelligence”?
The fact of the matter is, these studies “explain” a low amount of the variance and other variables are much more conducive to success in life.
The fact that IQ lacks predictive power should tell you something about the “construct” of IQ—nevermind that such relations are built in to the test by virtue of IQ tests and scholastic achievement tests. (Recall that IQ tests are the father and scholastic achievement tests are the children.)
RR, saying IQ lacks predictive power for success because the correlation drops among people with the same education is like saying height lacks predictive power in basketball because the correlation drops in the NBA. Correlations almost always drop in range restricted samples:
https://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d556
As for how IQ causes income, every single decision we make every second of the day is g loaded to some degree so small differences in IQ translate into billions of more correct decisions made over a lifetime leading to more success in whatever your goal may be.
IQ subtests like WAIS comprehension measure common sense with questions like “why do we need money?” “why should we stay in school?”, “what should you do if you’re on your way to work and realize you’re in danger of being late?” (not real items). People who know the correct answers to such questions are more likely to get a degree, get a good job and know how to keep it.
People who do well on Block Design are more likely to learn how to navigate complex computer interface, figure out how to design a building, land an airplane, put together a machine, understand geometry, and organize a room, desk, or page of text. All useful skills in many jobs.
People who do well on Picture Completion are more likely to see flaws in their clothing and appearance & make a better impression, notice when their tire is low on air & thus not miss work because of car problems, notice the button they’re supposed to press to make the computer program work etc.
People with high scores on general knowledge are more likely to learn all the facts that define their job duties and learn about opportunities for promotion
People with high scores on Vocab and Similarities are more likely to use better diction in interviews and write better reports and emails at work.
People who do well on digit symbol are more likely to complete clerical tasks quickly and accurately.
People who do well on arithmetic will be better at computer programming or picking stocks
In short, IQ tests measure the ability to absorb and apply information which is useful in all societies, especially complex technological ones
“IQ tests measure the ability to absotd and apply information which is useful in all societies”
This is an assertion; this does not get around Nash’s measurement objection. That they “measure” what PP “thinks” isn’t evidence that IQ—itself—is causally efficacious. How does this measure meet the basic requirements of measurement?
I mean all of those examples sound intuitively true. But what about the lack of the transfer effect? Doesn’t that imply IQ is not causal to a lot of those seemingly parallel skills?
In people who haven’t been coached Block Design is a sample of one’s broader spatial ability, Comprehension is a sample of one’s broader socio intelligence, etc.
Now if people are coached, they can greatly increase their score on the particular subtest, but it no longer transfers.
To give an example, if you were selected at random to be part of a focus group of 10 people to give your opinion of Trump. Because you were selected at random, you reflect 10% of American adults.
But if I found out you were part of the focus group and coached you to love Trump, you would increase the percentage of the focus group who loved Trump by 10% but it wouldn’t increase the percentage of America that loves Trump. My coaching of you would not transfer to the millions of people you represent, all that was accomplished is the focus group was rigged.
The same applies to subtests on the Wechsler. When we don’t coach them, they are each representative of a huge part of cognition, but once coached, they reflect only themselves
So basically the fact that the transfer effect involves coaching is why it may seem like cognitive abilities are modular?
Block design is a sample of one’s broader spatial ability but if you coach someone on it you’re only making them better at that specific sub test? Why do you think that is? Because it seems counterintuitive. I understand your example but it’s not completely representative of what we’re talking about here. So I’m still skeptical.
Another analogy might be, in the general population, an arm curling test might be an excellent measure of overall strength, but if one does arm curls every other day, you will increase your arm curl ability by maybe 2 SD but that will have minimal transfer to your ability to do tricep extensions or bench press let alone leg press, let alone how fast you can run
So just as arm curl practice won’t improve overall strength let alone overall athleticism, block design practice wont improve overall spatial let alone overall intelligence
Right, but that still begs the question: do you believe there is underlying biological mechanism that ties all mental abilities together? Or do you think g is simply a statistical construct?
I forgot to add context.
High IQ overcomes poverty.
High income overcomes low IQ.
“But if you’re from an oppressed ethnic group, smart people will have more EGI because they understand their people have been screwed over and can pursue their instincts guilt free, without compromising more abstract goals.”
Just like Fraz said, the smartest blacks will always support whites since whites helped them the most. Even if some whites are racist outwardly, the majority hide their racism. Hiding racism is the smartest strategy because you can exploit more people and/or have more allies. That’s the strategy Jews have used on the rest of us. There’s no such thing as pursuing something guilt free because someone will always get hurt.
You shot yourself in the foot. You said that smart people know who’s a stereotype and who’s not (like me) yet you said the smartest blacks have racist EGI levels. All whites being evil is not true and believing that is dumb.
“I agree it’s better to be born rich than smart, but life itself is largely an IQ test, so it’s dumb to deny IQ has independent predictive power.”
Shot yourself in the foot again. It’s better to be born smart than rich because dumb people die faster and squander their wealth. You’ve seen this with black athletes. Tyson got exploited by his higher ups. A lot of NBA players get obese after retiring. Most CEOs are fugly with mantits and sexual diseases. Safe sex doesn’t exist. I heard rumors that Bill Gates had lymphoma.
Boxing (and football) is the perfect sport to manage because people who play the sports get their brains scrambled and then have to pay a lot of money for treating their brain damage. Since their brains are fucked, they don’t realize that the businessmen took most of their hard earned money.
Bill Gates is not smart. If he was really smart, he would be buying gold, sliver, etc. because that’s real money. He wouldn’t be pushing for vaccines when you could use regular medicine to treat COVID-19. He wouldn’t screw over white people because they will be more important as automation increases. Most immigrants will lose their jobs.
The Middle East will die as they lose more oil. They put all their eggs in one basket. China will die as more people avoid them. Whores will die as HIV grows more resistant from Prep and other sexual diseases get more resistant to antibiotics. By the time bacteriophages get into the markets the whores would had ran out of money because they spent it all on the soon to be defunct drugs.
Forgot to add something
Oprah is the anti-thesis to your theory:
She appealed to white people
Apologized to Latinos for not promoting their books
Didn’t give her money to others
She didn’t apologize to latinos, she said she would look for more Latino writers in the future.
Oprah advanced her EGI by putting a black family in the White House, putting 500 black men through morehouse, putting Toni Morrison on the bestseller list, building homes in New Orleans after Katrina & building the best school in Africa
You still think Oprah is the reason Obama got elected lmao?
There hasn’t been a non-disabled person who thought anything else in the last twelve years.
Don’t pretend like that’s common knowledge. Nobody with an ounce of socio-political intelligence thinks that’s the case.
Could she have helped? Sure, but she’s definitely not the main reason.
So David Plouffe, Obama’s top poloitical strategist has no political intelligence?
Not saying she was the MAIN reason, I’m saying without her, he would never have beat Hillary in the Democratic primary.
In a razor close election between the first black and the first woman with a serious chance of being president, an endorsement from the most influential member of both demographics tipped the scale in Obama’s favor:
https://freakonomics.com/2008/08/06/so-much-for-one-person-one-vote/
Probably less than he’s given credit for. Getting the first black nominee elected wouldn’t of been hard in this day and age.
Even then, I doubt that study can actually arrive to that conclusion without any sort of arbitrary assumptions.
On an unrelated note, if it had been Obama vs Trump who do you think would have won?
Keep in mind Obama was running against the first woman and the Clintons were considered untouchable at the time. It took Obama an incredibly long time to gain traction. CNN declared Hillary the winner of every debate with some of his debate answers being so bad they inspired protests in Pakistan. Obama was losing by double digits for many months especially among the non-college educated. He couldn’t even win black women until Oprah campaigned in South Carolina.
As for Obama vs Trump, Trump might have won if Obama had been allowed to run for a third term in 2016, but if he came back to run for a third term now, he’d probably beat Trump.
I agree with your last two points and your first point but not the others. Obama didn’t help black people, he encouraged more criminality by promoting the racist (and dumb) organization BLM. If he really wanted to help he would had:
Ended the drug war and looked into pharma instead because they have made the most addictions LEGALLY with morphine therefore enabling people to look into harder drugs
Promoted birth control over abortion (Stem cell revenge)
Punished ONLY drug dealers (addiction is not a crime becuase greedy companies want you to be addicted to pharma shit, hydrogenated oils and sugar)
Build Nordic like drug clinics that have licensed professionals who can help you get rid of addiction (more jobs for everyone)
Popular =/= good
Ton Morrison just pumped out navel gazing shit. Outside of her woe is me semantics, her books won’t be remembered for being entertaining and/or insightful. The whining is so annoying. Blacks have it good now. They mostly sabotage themselves.
Blacks sat on their ass during Katrina instead of moving out, therefore they got killed. Stupid.
Forgot to add:
Building new homes in New Orleans helps everyone, that hasn’t refuted my main argument.
[redacted by pp, April 10, 2020]
“It’s better to be born smart than rich because dumb people die faster”
Seems like this guy here is ignorant to sociology of medicine. I’ll discuss this later.
And what’s funny about Bajema, as discussed by Panofsky (2014: 62, Misbehaving Science), is that Bajema showed that low “intelligence” individuals had a “total fertility [that] was actually less than those with high intelligence, and thus the eugenic anxiety was empirically groundless.”
Re income and IQ see: https://developmentalsystem.wordpress.com/2019/11/05/the-predictive-invalidity-of-iq/
As a I said, financial success is hard to measure. Most studies just use self-reported salary which is unreliable & unstable. Studies are further skewed by the fact that many high IQ women stay at home, & technically have zero personal income, but their household incomes are high. The IQ-income correlation goes way up when you average income over many peak earning years & perhaps average personal income with share of household income
Very good answer, Pumpkin.
Bonus question:do you think youre more intelligent than Oprah or Obama? Explain why or why not?
pumpkin, when you mentioned to others that my mental illness prevents me from reaching my cognitive potential. (away from your blog months at a time). I was thinking about fatigue, bipolar and figure weights. I was also thinking about if we could test all brain areas to see them work together. The connection between frontal and parietal lobes have the highest correlation with (g) / the central hub of IQ.
I exhaust myself sometimes and sometimes my brain exhausts me. It is hard to read or parse out my ideas. Sometimes I have high energy / idea mania. It takes months to years for perfection. Increased study/research/maturity. Things all come together.
I wish I could keep the stress low and energy high. Burnout is not good.
Burnout is the real problem.
I am imbalanced because of it.
I have really high cognitive reserve.
But too much has happened to me the processing speed has been depleted.
Anxiety creates phenomenal sensations of burning and pure OCD.
It takes a lot to heal things up. I need to be more relaxed.
If I cannot quiet my mind the OCD forces thoughts upon me.
But I can control that with music.
But sometimes it gets bad like how I fail to communicate.
I force my mind to think of something to say.
Then I force myself to say it to them.
I get in a grip and it is had to speak.
Luckily after a few years of this, I can feel resolved and not griped anymore.
Forcing myself to have ideas is not a natural process.
I do not know what a natural thinking process is but I do know that decreasing resistance is part of it.
hahahaha how did you even find this guy? I spend way too much time on the Internet (less now that I’m in school) but I’ve never even seen this guy mentioned anywhere before….
I just stumbled upon him when researching the similarities & differences between the alt-right & the black left.
He’s hilarious. He refers to Trump as “president tangerine”, refers to Angela rye as “Angela Rye with lettuce & tomato on the side”, refers to the brilliant Mark Lamont Hill as “Mark Lamont you big dummy Hill” & refers to Bernie Sanders as “Bernie the bigot”
And just as the alt-right believes in white genocide, he thinks elites are trying to genocide African Americans
GondwanaMan,
I’m prepping for the LSAT and will be taking it at the end of May. Fortunately LSAC is administering a truncated version of the test online consisting of only three sections (LG, LR, RC). This should help with fatigue in general but will make the LR section more stressful as I’m sure they will weight it in accordance with a regular LSAT.
Any tips?
Yeah, I am actually fascinated by the new changes, because the new highest raw score will only be around 75 points vs. 100 points, so I’m not sure how equating works there but apparently they can do it. I’m guessing we will still see the same 50% grading weight on the Logical Reasoning though…
How long have you been prepping for this? I prepped for almost a year and probably spent $1000 on prepping materials and took the test multiple times before I got my highest score of 172. It’s a long ride if you want to maximize your abilities. The most I can say at this point is that your prep should be roughly 70% Logic Games, 25% Logical Reasoning, 5% Reading Comprehension at this point. You might wanna do 1-2 practice test a week and about 10 total, giving yourself unlimited time on the first 4 or 5 practice tests and go back and review carefully what you did wrong.
Also, get the Logic Games Type Training work book from Powerscore and do 4 games a day, giving yourself unlimited time on the first two, and roughly 10 minutes on the last two. And don’t focus on simple linear type logic games; do some harder grouping ones (including binary grouping). Think of games in 6 different ways: Number distribution, grouping, linear, subsets, conditional reasoning, and and/or statements, and think roughly in that order whether those characteristics apply to the game you’re working on. Games with subsets were always tricky, as are some of the rarer types that are making a come-back like circular grouping games.
Back in the day when I was prepping (2017 and 2018) there were multiple videos online showing you how to do each of the specific Logic Games that have been published but I think a lot of them were taken down. But I still think you can find some videos, they’re just aren’t as many examples of different methods to work from.
Thanks for your thorough response. I’ve been using 7Sage, on and off, since about November and have found it extremely helpful. I tried going it on my own before that and got nowhere.. Very good demonstrations on how to approach logic games from them. Subsets in LG are still killer, though, as you said. I’ve gotten much better at parameterizing the games.
My “diagnostic” was in the low/mid 160’s range and I’ve managed to reach 171 on a PT but I still feel like I can do better. I still make stupid mistakes like not fully reading a question or misreading it altogether because I feel rushed.
My breakdown in terms of practicing sections basically mirrors what you said at this point. RC seems the least trainable and I tend to miss 1-2 on it so I’m not even bothering except for when I take full length tests. For LR I’ll take them with full tests and then a section here and there for more focused practice, reviewing questions I wasn’t sure on and obviously those that went wrong.
I’ve spent around $400 on materials. 7sage subscription and now LSAC has released all of its official practice tests in the digital format in a one year, $99 subscription format, which is really really helpful.
I may have maxed in terms of my raw ability already but I’m going to keep trying and hope that the May test plays to my strengths.
How do you like law school and what do you plan to do after graduation?
Oh YEAH it was the 7Sage videos for Logic Games that were will helpful, but I think they were taken down. I would try LSAT Lab too. You can input your data into the website and it gives feedback on what areas and what problem types in each section you need to work on. But you have to pay for extra practice tests. The guy that runs the company does a lot personalized tutoring and online classes, I’ve spoken with him on the phone a bunch of times and he’s really helpful in giving advice.
I went from mid-150s to 172, so I probably reached the tippy top of what the vast majority of people can improve in the most optimal of circumstances. I don’t know of anyone else personally who increased more than 10-12 points, and most people will only increase 5-7 points even after taking a formal class. As a general rule of thumb, Logic Games is the one section where a person who starts at median can realistically reach -0/-1 (number of problems incorrect). If you started in the low 160s, I think it’s possible to get -0 on Logic Games, -4 on RC, and -2 on Logical Reasoning…except you said you’re already surpassed that on RC, so I think 175+ is obtainable for you on the May exam. But also, it looks like on the LSAT website if you signed up for the April exam you can delay to June or even July if you want. I might recommend delaying to ensure you get your 175+ score.
As far as law school, it’s tough, at least my school which is top 25. This semester got fucked up by the Coronavirus so we’re all on mandatory pass/fail now, which sucks because I wanted to pull up my GPA. I feel like I worked my ass off just to be in the middle of the class. I had to quit smoking weed everyday because I couldn’t keep up last semester. Classes with cold calls suck but they keep you honest with yourself at the same time.
I have an in-house corporate internship lined up for this summer which pays $30 an hour but it got pushed back to July. Law school in general is a LOT of work but it’s not too overwhelming for someone capable of a 160+ LSAT. Just do the readings as they ask you, try to do a few extracurriculars like Law Review or Moot Court, go to office hours, network, make at least Cs in all of your classes (although preferably make B+s, especially if you go to a lower-ranked school), and you should have no problem finding summer internships, and later finding a job that will at least pay $90,000 a year or so once you get out.
Yea 7sage has that functionality now as well. It can tell you what categories you need to focus on, it’s really great.
Yes, I feel fairly confident on LR and RC. If I could lock down LG I think I could hit 173 or 174, 175 if I get really lucky. I’m a “splitter” (~3.4 undergrad gpa) and transferred twice… so I need to go as high as possible on the test.
I think I’m going to take the May test no matter what just because of the shorter format. It could be a once in a lifetime opportunity. Or it could be just the same but I think it’s worth a shot to maybe gain even a slight edge. I will likely sign up for June or July as well just to hedge. If I don’t get the score I want in June/July I’ll probably pass on law school since I’m already 26. If I get in next cycle I’d be entering at age 27…graduating at 30, likely with debt, seems risky to go beyond that.
Thanks for sharing your experience. That sucks about coronavirus but at least you’ve got the internship already. I can’t stand the feeling of being high on weed so that won’t be a problem for me XD but I am a procrastinator of the highest order and I feel like law school will require steady diligence so I’ll need to reorient myself a bit.
“I’ve spent around $400 on materials. 7sage subscription and now LSAC has released all of its official practice tests in the digital format in a one year, $99 subscription format, which is really really helpful.”
Damn these companies make a killing. They say a sucker is born every minute.
kind of like people who hire wop personal trainers?
Did I hurt your feelings?
yeah i dont know what difference it is, using LSAT prep materials versus using a personal trainer…
Pumpkinperson, you’re absolutely ridiculous with your insistence that Michael is a pedophile. You really must have a fetish for Oprah to be so enthralled to this level of obstinacy. A flimsy documentary does not overturn or even compare, on any sensible level, the two FBI investigations from two separate instances of several years between them.
However you’re defining social IQ, it’s clear that it’s merely how committed you are to consensus or popularity. Nothing good about that.
billy, the FBI never investigated nor exonerated MJ, they simply provided support for the investigation.
I explained why I think he was guilty here:
https://pumpkinperson.com/2019/03/11/was-michael-jackson-a-child-molester/
MJ was definitely a chimo.
I don’t think that people with lopsided IQ stats can be smart. People with low social IQs will be fooled easily by everyone else and encounter a income ceiling because you need high verbal IQ to become really rich.
People with high verbal IQs usually are psychopaths with no impulse control and will eventually lose their money doing something bad/stupid.
If this information came out it would hurt businesses, feelings, and it would enable white supremacy because whites have the most balanced stats.
I just dont get you. Are you a black lives matter person?
No. White supremacy is better for everyone.
Black Lives Matter supports criminals and I hate criminals.
All other races should be kissing white ass, not the other way around.
This guy is a true blue white supremacist. Tell me, what led you to the beliefs you now hold?
This was so cringey to read along with Billy’s comment. Wanna be white supremacists talking shit on the internet, making no sense.
To add to that, there are clever sillies of the social kind too. Their social IQ falls in the 105-125 range, smart enough to see their incompetencies but dumb enough to not be as self aware as someone with a higher threshold social IQ.
What’s wrong with Billy’s comment
Billy is going in hard on the EGI, circumvent truth to defend his race.
Of course, I wouldn’t be surprised that you would do the same since it seems like you’re doing so now…unless I’m deeply over extrapolating.
Regardless, why defend Billy when you find his assertion to be wrong in the first place? That’s all I’m saying…
i remember when i was lifting yuge weights off the ground and had ridiculous hair and was writing way too long articles on trans-intersectionality…
and then i killed myself with a horse penis.
^^^ hahaha. Someone defends someone of the same race? It MUST be “EGI.”
Nevermind the fact that the basis of the theory is Dawkins’ debunked selfish gene theory.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2020/01/27/follow-the-leader-selfish-genes-evolution-and-nationalism/
How do you “measure” “social IQ”?
Curious the way obama never campaigned for hilary in 2016.
Yes he did
Wonder what obamas approval ratings are these days.
Pill, what’s your opinion of professor black truth & his theories? Did you listen to the YouTube in the article?
He sounds like a parody of afro.
What if Philo and this other guy are talking about the same people? Pretty sure that most blacks say Jews are ‘white’ (though they are Caucasian).
They are talking about a lot of the same people, but while Professor Black Truth sees Jewish elites as just part of the white supremacist conspiracy to oppress blacks, the alt-right sees them as part of a Jewish supremacist agenda to oppress whites. It’s just interesting how both have the exact same thought process, but come to diametrically opposed conclusions.
That’s how you know they’re full of shit. They aren’t uncovering any truth but prescribing one to the data they see and disregarding any that disagrees. It’s incredibly subjective and unfalsifiable.
Kind of like EGI
This guy is objectively wrong and I’m objectively right about what’s going on.
See why I mean^
That’s not just stupid and wrong. It’s “gay and evil” as Mugabe would put it.
it’s all a distraction. a heterogeneous society is much easier for a tiny minority to govern. divide (and thus distract) and conquer.
bill maher can say “white trash”, but he can’t say “nigger”. this tells you who rules you and how they fool you.
this tells you who rules you and how they fool you.
it tells you who rules the media, but what does it tell us about who rules law enforcement when blacks are more likely to serve more time for the same crime than whites?
It’s a whole nother level of stupid to think “nigger” and “white trash” have the same amount of disrespect behind them.
rr himself is just a stooge of capital talking about negro cfr vs white. why doesn’t he talk about white cfr in west virginia or jew cfr..or why doesn’t he talk about the CFR?
[redacted by pp, april 10, 2020]
i guess one might argue that “white trash” really doesn’t mean “poor white”; there’s just a lot of overlap between the two. so if you’re a poor white person with a PhD in medieval french, you’re not white trash. but if you’re a rich white person like donald trump or lindsay lohan you’re still white trash. but it’s more than that. classism is acceptable in america. in fact it’s de riguer.
i remember an italian american woman i used to work with who had a masters in math from berkeley and came from a pretty well off family in sf moved to pdx and lived in a trailer park and worked at macdonalds for a while until she could find a real job.
Another trash page erected by a pale face
PumpkinPerson,
Please elaborate on your argument that believing Michael Jackson to be innocent is a sign of low social IQ. I have a Stanford Binet IQ score of 139, which is probably much higher adjusted for social class, having spent the first sixteen yeats of my life either homeless or on welfare. And I strongly suspect Michael Jackson was not a true pedophile, simply a stunted and emotionally infantile man-child who had asexual relationships with children. Jackson clearly preferred the company of preadolescent boys to adults. Even if he wasn’t having sex with the boys, he was still basically sat ng them. However, an inability to distinguish between this inappropriate yet asexual behavior and flat out pedophilia, e.g. sexual molestation, is one of the things I deeply resent about the low IQ masses, who we all know deeply love a scandal.
On that note, here is a friendly challenge: what is the average IQ of a Lipstick Alley member? Lipstick Alley is a forum for celebrity gossip predominantly populated by black American women addicted to reality TV. It’s a deeply fascinating forum to lurk, given that its members are basically all black Philosopher analogs who vacillate between blaming white men for all of the world’s problems and sexually objectifying them. The late Chris Cornell is a particularly mourned sex symbol for LA members. The fact that these black women are technologically literate enough to be internet addicts makes me want to credit them with an average IQ in the low 90s.
if his relations with kids was asexual, then with whom was he having sexual relations? There’s never been any credible evidence of him having sexual relations with adults (male or female). The asexual childlike persona is just an act. He exuded way too much sexual energy in his singing and dancing and comes from way too sexual a family for me to believe he was asexual. The high voice he speaks with is fake. Multiple sources say that behind the scenes he’s a tough shrewd business man with a deep manly man voice.
I agree completely that Michael’s baby voice was part of his carefully crafted public persona. His true voice probably sounded a lot like that of his father, Joe Jackson, wth whom Michael had a love-hate relationship (or even a hate-hate relationship). I further postulate Michael’s plastic surgery addiction stemmed in large part from the tremendous discomfort Michael experienced every time he looked in a mirror and saw a reflection of his father’s features staring back at him. However, this dichotomy between public and private personae alone isn’t deeply incriminating as it pertains to the pedophilia allegations. Almost all public figures have a separate persona crafted for public relations.
As for Michael’s sexual energy, I agree it was always on display in his dancing. Where did he vent this pent up sexual desire? That is an interesting question. According to investigative journalist Ian Halperin, who infiltrated the Neverland estate by posing as a hair stylist, Jackson was a deeply closeted homosexual with gay lovers in Las Vegas. According to Jackson’s former bodyguards, Jackson had secret girlfriends in Las Vegas. Personally, I would not be surprised at all to learn that he had lovers from both genders. I never said he was a true asexual, only that his conduct with children was likely asexual, i.e. platonic.
I agree completely that Michael’s baby voice was part of his carefully crafted public persona. His true voice probably sounded a lot like that of his father, Joe Jackson, wth whom Michael had a love-hate relationship (or even a hate-hate relationship). I further postulate Michael’s plastic surgery addiction stemmed in large part from the tremendous discomfort Michael experienced every time he looked in a mirror and saw a reflection of his father’s features staring back at him.
According to his maid, he simply didn’t want to be black because he felt blacks were not liked as much as other races.
However, this dichotomy between public and private personae alone isn’t deeply incriminating as it pertains to the pedophilia allegations. Almost all public figures have a separate persona crafted for public relations.
But your defense against the allegations was that he was sleeping with kids because he was just a big kid himself. By admitting that was largely an act, that defense no longer works.
As for Michael’s sexual energy, I agree it was always on display in his dancing. Where did he vent this pent up sexual desire? That is an interesting question. According to investigative journalist Ian Halperin, who infiltrated the Neverland estate by posing as a hair stylist, Jackson was a deeply closeted homosexual with gay lovers in Las Vegas.
Halperin’s not the most credible source, but MJ has been rumoured to be gay since the 1970s. You apparently find that plausible, and yet you don’t think he was gay for the (underage) males he was actually sleeping with (in one case for 365 nights), one of whom he settled a molestation case with for tens of millions? That violates Occam’s razor.
According to Jackson’s former bodyguards, Jackson had secret girlfriends in Las Vegas.
why would he keep these girlfriends secret when he had every reason to look straight after being accused of molesting boys? More likely these bodyguards were paid by the estate to say he had girlfriends to save his brand.
My argument is that the underage boys met Michael’s asexual need for companionship, in effect forming an ad hoc peer group. This was an element Michael seemed to value for its own sake, as one values a circle of close friends even if those friends are not sexual companions. This does not suggest to me that he did not have other needs that were being met elsewhere, e.g.sex with adults.
And no, I absolutely do not believe he was a pedophile just because he was likely gay or bisexual. I am careful not to conflate homosexuality with attraction to prepubescent boys and I must caution you against making this fallacy.
According to Halperin, it was not Michael’s idea to settle the suit. He was strongarmed into a settlement by his record company.
My argument is that the underage boys met Michael’s asexual need for companionship, in effect forming an ad hoc peer group. This was an element Michael seemed to value for its own sake, as one values a circle of close friends even if those friends are not sexual companions. This does not suggest to me that he did not have other needs that were being met elsewhere, e.g.sex with adults.
But why wouldn’t he seek non-sexual companionship in adults? If he were the childlike simpleton he pretended to be, it would make sense, but why would a brilliant man dumb himself down to befriend kids unless he had an ulterior motive?
And no, I absolutely do not believe he was a pedophile just because he was likely gay or bisexual. I am careful not to conflate homosexuality with attraction to prepubescent boys and I must caution you against making this fallacy.
He was accused of homosexual pedophilia so his alleged homosexuality is incriminating. If he were accused of heterosexual pedophilia, his alleged homosexuality would be exonerating.
According to Halperin, it was not Michael’s idea to settle the suit. He was strongarmed into a settlement by his record company.
No record company could have strong armed MJ into settling a molestation case for tens of millions of dollars. He settled the case shortly after a strip search confirmed a drawing his accuser made of his private parts.
The more I think about it, the more convinced I am you are right, PP. There are too many things that don’t jive once you accept the obvious truth Michael was a wolf in sheep’s clothing with an enormous Machiavellian streak. Plato observed long ago that it is easier to fool someone than it is to convince them they have been fooled. He was right and I am beginning to realize how adept Michael was at casting all the right shadows on the cave wall for his fans.
Well, this might be a first. Someone on the internet admits he was wrong about something! I doubt this trend will continue around these parts.
I have empathy for his defenders because a lot of blacks do get falsely accused, but in order to think he was innocent you almost have to believe he had the mind of a child
I think the evidence is much stronger that he was a Genius in several domains, including sadly, criminality