Tags
I have always doubted the historical consensus that Africans sold their own people into slavery. The whole point of slavery is that you’re forced to work without pay. If whites were powerful enough to force millions of blacks to work without pay, they would have been powerful enough to take those workers from black countries without having to pay for them in the first place.
Also, if they were going to pay for slaves, then why go all the way to Africa to get them? The whole point of going to a less technologically advanced region to get slaves is that you can take the slaves by force.
Lastly, if you believe in HBD (which many people dismiss as racist pseudoscience), the average white American is about 15 IQ points higher than the average black American and that gap would have perhaps been 20 points before white genes entered the U.S. black gene pool in large numbers. A 20 point IQ gap (if it reflects a genuine gap in intelligence) is so large that whites would have been dominant enough to simply help themselves to whatever resources they wanted in sub-Saharan Africa (including human ones) without having to pay anyone anything. In fact if whites really had to pay for slaves, it calls HBD into question because it implies a business deal among equal races, not an advanced race enslaving a more primitive one.
Ironically, Professor Black Truth agrees that whites stole (rather than paid for) black slaves but he uses it to argue their moral inferiority, not their cognitive superiority:
Pumpkin Person 
Puppy are you going to let me comment or what? Why are you nuking your blog?
it’s hard to blog when you’re in jail.
No just busy working from home. I’ve been declared an essential worker.
Dude, Pumpkin can you not…like you suffer from so much of a narcissistic personality it’s disgusting. You glorify yourself while evading any serious criticism of yourself for which there is plenty. Please understand and rectify.
whereas before peepee was declared an essential worker she wasn’t busy working at work? what a retard.
before i was declared an essential worker i was just at my suburban home social distancing for a month and a half, going on long walks, not knowing when i’d be called back to go to work. Then I got the call to pick up all my equipment from the office because I’d be working from home,
Bugger Bee, keep my name out of your AIDS infected mouth.
marsha’s job is pretending to be a whore then robbing her would be johns.
pill + marsha:
What is your general field of work pp?
Philospher, why are you still commenting here anyway?
Come to Manhattan, baby.
I got a nice big bed and no one to share it with.
Come to Manhattan, baby.
The coronavirus is waiting for you.
Ouch! Burned.
peepee still refuses to comment on the objectively absurd fact that the CEOs of microsoft, google, and ibm and the chairman of intel are all south asian.
best explanation for why they aren’t china people is “racism” and language.
that is, south asians are viewed as honorary whites by european americans. they’re caucasoids.
and china people can never learn english…like ever.
and it’s not just that chinese is so different from the indo-european languages. korean and japanese can never learn english either. so maybe it’s hard wired/genetic.
the china people explanation ala steve hsu is…
south asians are much more likely to be psychopaths.
I agree with all those explanations including hsu’s (though I doubt he said that)
It’s also rumoured that Brahmans have even higher IQs than East Asians & perhaps even higher than Ashkenazim but no good data
South Asians are also more ethnocentric than whites but who isn’t?
You’re retarded pumpkin. I was waiting for you to write something so stupid and you did! Well…congratulations bc you are a moron.
Fyi whites are not cognitively superior to anyone. Their language exists as the one we talk with, their number system, everything. Whites are just maladjusted, moralless citizens of earth who had the entitlement to want more and more until the greed ate them up.
Tell the truth pumpkin. You are a liar and a conman.
The white agenda will die and only the immoral and senseless will follow it within their creed.
Whites, not Jews, are the problem with our society. We shall [redacted by pp, may 7, 2020] sooner rather than later.
Loaded your anti-white comments are racist. Please be more diplomatic.
This is the inherent proof of the white limitation in intelligence. As soon as their superiority in said cognitive function falls apart they ask to use diplomacy as a method of diverting other cognitive supremacies others might have over them.
[redacted by pp, may 7, 2020]
human trafficking still goes on
and hunger
and clean water
and education
and homelessness
Patrick Stewart: millions of refugees need our help
Donald Trump is a [refacted by pp, may 7, 2020]…if he can even win this election. Honestly, probably not but if he does he will succumb as a useless President with no moral fiber. The testimonies against him are plenty and nothing withstands the will of God, something he is not.
In the words of the man himself [redacted by pp, may 7, 2020]
Comedians once said Bill Clinton was our first black president.
Now we have our first Cheeto president.
I think it’s been said on here before but…isn’t D. Trump the first Jewish President. I mean, he was the first to introduce UBI it America so it only makes sense.
You know what I do not have… perspective. If I cannot draw it must mean so. Because I never liked drawing. Not because I was bad at it. But it’s like playing videogames blindfolded. How can you enjoy something you never make progress in or gain any new ideas from. It is perspective I have trouble with. It is not that I don’t have perspective. It is that I cannot reproduce it. When I try looking at objects using perspective I do not know what angles go where. If I forced myself to draw I would probably get brain damage more so than I do now. It is dangerous to force a cognitive process that is not fully developed. Going crosseyed might happen and worse. no joke. headaches happen to many people when they cannot handle stress.
Perspective came from the renaissance.
I draw the way a medieval artist would.
This is a chance to look at IQ vs culture.
Does having perspective increase IQ?
Or does perspective unsuppressed simply happen from a rise in IQ.
Similarly, comics began in small numbers.
The number of graphic novels in the world today should be in the millions.
Perspective is what I dominate at. Recently been told I have a (and excuse me for saying this Pill since you say I say it so repetitively) genius-like intuition, particularly in its extraverted form. I think you would refer to it as Ne (extroverted intuition.)
It inclined to use my feelings as well as I am on the border of ENTP and ENFP, leaning the latter for artistic and intellectual purposes.
Regardless I search for words in a way that they just come to me naturally and make coherent sentences with them.
Slavery was practised in East Africa by the Arabs. It was a more difficult trade for the Royal Navy to suppress. White Europeans were also enslaved by the Ottoman Turks
slavery is still practiced in africa.
the slaves were prisoners of war.
very low IQ people like professor black truth think that the solidarity of north american negroes was shared by 17th and 18th century africans.
but as deklerk said, “the xhosa are as different from the zulus as the swiss are from the estonians” or something like that.
[redacted by pp, may 7, 2020]
How much do you know about economics Pumpkin? There’s a thing called comparative advantage. The fact that whites could capture slaves themselves doesn’t mean it’s not cheaper and easier to trade for them. Things that were commonplace in the west would’ve been very valuable in Africa, like guns. Would you rather risk your life hunting slaves in dense jungles where you risk getting ambushed or catching some terrible disease?
It’s also less morally objectionable to buy people who are already slaves than to enslave people.
“Also, if they were going to pay for slaves, then why go all the way to Africa to get them?”
Native American slaves were rather good at escaping into the interior or dying of old world diseases. Also, I believe at least the British colonists were inherently less prejudiced against natives than against blacks.
I get that but for me, one of the main reasons I started believing in HBD as a kid was that I was under the impression that whites enslaved blacks which implies a huge inequality between the races. When I later read that whites merely bought slaves from blacks, it completely changed the narrative and destroyed a major piece of evidence for HBD. But since I believe in HBD is true, it’s hard for me to believe that a major piece of evidence and symbolism in support of it is not true. I know that’s wacky reasoning, but it’s how I view it.
Yeah, that sounds like some weird form of confirmation bias. Also, Arabs enslaved Europeans, do you think that implies a huge inequality?
The fact that the west could manufacture goods that the Africans couldn’t produce themselves, while the blacks had to rely on natural resources like slaves and ivory for trade, is itself suggestive of lower intelligence.
The fact that the west could manufacture goods that the Africans couldn’t produce themselves, while the blacks had to rely on natural resources like slaves and ivory for trade, is itself suggestive of lower intelligence.
Yes, but that’s a subtle point. I like when IQ differences translate into something vivid and concrete like brain size or enslavement. Unequal trade relations is meh.
Silly Pumpkin, isn’t this big enough for you? 🙂
Just found a shocking statistic:
According to the best estimates, by 1800 Africa’s population was half of what it would have been, had the slave trades not occurred (Manning 1990).
So caucasoids enslaved literally half of the entire negroid race.
I like this guy. Putting the Pumpkinmeister in his place where he belongs so desperately along with his friends, Pill and Mugabe…and possibly RR when he goes full retard but thats rare.
peepee was scarred for life when this happened to her.
Hehe, I’m sure Vox used the highest estimate they could find to make the slave trade seem as terrible as possible, but it just seems to have made you impressed Pumpkin 🙂
I wouldn’t be surprised if those researchers just assumed Africa’s population would grow the same as Europe’s without the slave trade.
Loaded: Are you talking about me? 🙂 Pumpkin’s a smart guy, he just seems peculiarly attached to this idea of his. I’m certainly no expert on this history, but what I do know is that if the argument could remotely be made that Europeans directly enslaved Africans rather than bought them, the SJWs would 100% insist that’s what happened and call any other view “victim-blaming” or something.
PP
Personally I prefer to look at historic achievement(across a series of metrics, a civilizational IQ test of sorts) in order to validate or reject HBD. In that respect two groups of people stand out above the rest, Europeans and East Asians both with about 3,000 years of top tier achievement. Then its North Africans/Middle Easterners and then the rest with sadly Black Africans at the bottom. Now is this simply due to chance(or lack thereof wrt Africans) or is there some underlying quality that predisposed these groups of people for what they were able to achieve? If you think that about 100,000 years is enough to substantively create genetic cognitive divergence then chance had little to do with it and it was a matter of time. IMO the disparity is far too great to blame this on chance while noting that under extreme selection pressures 100 generations is enough to create huge genetic differences let alone 4000 generations.
This in as much as intelligence social and cultural progress is concerned. If we look at it solely from an ability to dominate IMHO other qualities/genes come into play like ruthlessness and a propensity for violent and immoral behavior and in that respect one could argue that the mongols trump all other sub-groups. So I would generally avoid solely using dominance as a metric for intelligence. In fact intellectual enlightenment IMHO correlates negatively with domineering behavior. We see this with the Greeks the Romans and others, time and time again as a culture advances culturally this tends to pacify it over time which if not managed properly can leave it vulnerable to all sorts of dangers and eventually lead to its downfall.
So whether Europeans enslaved Africans by capturing them or buying them is neither here nor there and is revelatory of nothing other than possibly Europeans being slightly more immoral than we thought. My two cents is that both occurred. Some were captured others were bought, as appalling as this sounds to us we need to refrain from judging 17th century practices(by that point common across the entire world for thousands of years) with 21st century sensibilities.
PH, I agree that intelligent people are more moral, yet it is when people behave immorally that intelligence is displayed in its most vivid, consequential and natural form. Intelligence arguably evolved to dominate: Ashkenazi Jews dominate whites and Arabs. Whites and Arabs dominated Bantu. Bantu dominate pygmies. Pygmies dominate animals. Animals dominate plants. And if we’re ever invaded by aliens, they’ll dominate everyone. So the intelligence hierarchy is very much a domination hierarchy though there are exceptions.
It’s a terrible thing to say but one of the biggest signs of human intelligence is our ability to enslave animals that are often twice our size, strength or speed; put them in cages and reduce them to beasts of burden. Thus when one race of human can do the same to another, for me it signals superior intelligence in the most vivid way. But when I hear that whites didn’t really enslave blacks, they merely purchased black slaves that blacks enslaved, it changes the story from one of racial domination (whites dominating blacks) to class domination (rich blacks selling poor blacks to rich whites).
Of course the truth is probably somewhere in between. Most of the slaves may have been sold, but in a subtle ways whites still dominated because slavery arguably made whites much richer and africa much poorer.
“I like this guy. Putting the Pumpkinmeister in his place where he belongs so desperately along with his friends, Pill and Mugabe…and possibly RR when he goes full retard but thats rare.”
This is the funniest thing I’ve ever seen you say.
“I agree that intelligent people are more moral”
Source?
Take these characteristics from Freeman (2008), Morality and Giftedness, do “intelligent people” (I assume you mean high IQ scorers) exhibit these characters? If so, sources?
1. Chooses the ethical rather than the expedient alternative when faced with an
interpersonal dilemma;
2. Stands against public sentiment when such sentiment threatens to compromise his/her
values;
3. Feels allegiance and responsibility for principles and causes;
4. Identifies with humanity beyond the immediate confines of his/her own group;
5. Feels compassion for wrongdoers without condoning their specific acts;
6. Perceives and admits to his/her own shortcomings; and
7. Holds to personal ideals transcending such qualities as appearance and social
acceptability
Does the West have an ethical imperative to help developing countries?
Haha I’m glad you appreciate my sense of humor RR. I’m coming to terms with the fact that this is a dying blog and the supernova isnt going to end well so I’m probably going to start commenting more on yours. You seem like a person who is level-headed and accepts criticism well.
PP
Well first we need to define what we mean by dominance. There’s dominance in the form of being smarter and more technologically and culturally advanced. This leads to a natural dominance which in many ways may even be welcomed by those being dominated provided they are treated somewhat humanely. It is a dominance of betters or in its most benign form a meritocratic dominance. We see this form of dominance in sports in politics in science etc. The better person takes the lead and in that respect as you correctly noted we see Ashkenazis punching well above their weight. I see nothing wrong with that but I simply don’t buy this idea that “Jews” dominate whites, that is a myth. They simply outperform whites per capita and as a whole provided we narrow our selection criteria to Ashkenazi Jews(mostly in the US and some in Europe) while widening the category of whites to the entire population of Europe and the US. We could just as well narrow our selection criteria and find a sub-population of whites that are comparable to Ashkenazis. If we compare Whites to Jews all round the world or even semitic people to which the Jews have kinship then we get an entirely different outcome. Similarly one could argue Indians are the absolute smartest(some metrics put them above the Jews) if we only use Indians in the US in our comparison and not those in the subcontinent. So how we construct our comparison does matter.
Then of course we have dominance brought about by brute force. Provided there is no large gap in intelligence or technological advancements I would argue you could train a population that is 10 IQ points lower than another and eventually have them dominate the smarter population through brute force ruthlessness and immoral practices and tactics. Chance could bring something like this about through economic and cultural variance pandemics or social corruption and demise(ie a nation that stops believing in itself or succumbs to regressive ideas and policies). It usually doesn’t last very long though since it is not a dominance of merit but one of violence ruthlessness and opportunism.
“I agree that intelligent people are more moral, yet it is when people behave immorally that intelligence is displayed in its most vivid”
That may be true provided both sides behave immorally. Sometimes a more morally advanced nation(all else equal) can be at a massive disadvantage because the other nation is prepared to behave immorally. It all depends on the rules of the game, if both sides play by the same rules(even immoral ones) then the better side should win, all else equal(including chance).
So this rule where the more dominant side is inherently the smarter side is really not a rule but possibly a marginal correlation given enough bouts are considered and not simply judged on one or two chance events. There is also a lot more nuance to the game that you are missing. Reading up on European history will reveal all this to you with the rise and fall of the Romans and countless back and forths, rises and falls all throughout Europe with no clear undisputed enduring champion so to speak(perhaps a good thing).
Well first we need to define what we mean by dominance.
by dominate I mean enslave. Either physically or psychologically.
I see nothing wrong with that but I simply don’t buy this idea that “Jews” dominate whites, that is a myth. They simply outperform whites per capita and as a whole provided we narrow our selection criteria to Ashkenazi Jews(mostly in the US and some in Europe) while widening the category of whites to the entire population of Europe and the US. We could just as well narrow our selection criteria and find a sub-population of whites that are comparable to Ashkenazis. If we compare Whites to Jews all round the world or even semitic people to which the Jews have kinship then we get an entirely different outcome. Similarly one could argue Indians are the absolute smartest(some metrics put them above the Jews) if we only use Indians in the US in our comparison and not those in the subcontinent. So how we construct our comparison does matter.
Right, but there’s a correct and incorrect way to subdivide. My way might not be the correct way, but here it is: The human species can be subdivided into at least 3 main races: negroids, caucasoids, and mongoloids. Now Caucasoids themselves can also probably be subdivided into 3 main categories: whites (europeans), dark Caucasoids (Middle Easterners & South Asians) & Ashkenazim (a hybrid of whites and dark caucasoids that split-off into a new subrace distinct from both parent populations).
Then of course we have dominance brought about by brute force. Provided there is no large gap in intelligence or technological advancements I would argue you could train a population that is 10 IQ points lower than another and eventually have them dominate the smarter population through brute force ruthlessness and immoral practices and tactics.
There are always other factors that can negate an IQ advantage, but generally speaking smart races will enslave less smart races because of superior technology and strategy. IQ never predicts anything with 100% certainty.
So this rule where the more dominant side is inherently the smarter side is really not a rule but possibly a marginal correlation given enough bouts are considered and not simply judged on one or two chance events. There is also a lot more nuance to the game that you are missing. Reading up on European history will reveal all this to you with the rise and fall of the Romans and countless back and forths, rises and falls all throughout Europe with no clear undisputed enduring champion so to speak(perhaps a good thing).
Well when comparing populations of similar IQ (different European ethnic groups), by definition IQ will tend not to be what makes the difference because the IQ difference is trivial. It’s like comparing creative achievements of whites vs East Asians. Because the East Asian > white IQ gap is only 5 points, other factors have allowed whites to be more creative.
if one believes that all mental abilities are positively correlated and that moral judgement is a mental ability then evil people with high IQs are like idiot savants.
saints must display “heroic virtue” according to the popish religion. this is like having a very high “moral reasoning” subscore on a truly general test of mental ability…but part of the test would have to be biography as psychopaths can answer correctly…but they can’t DO correctly.
As I’ve stated before, this is not correct. A psychopath who can pass a moral reasoning test has high moral reasoning. They can’t DO correctly because they can’t FEEL guilt, but that’s an emotional impairment not a cognitive one. The term “ability” in psychometrics never applies to involuntary variables like the ability to feel certain things, it only applies to voluntary responses. The psychopath who can fake high morality is morally very intelligent because he has the COGNITIVE component of morality, he just lacks the emotional component.
That’s not entirely true pumpkin
https://www.pnas.org/content/113/50/14438
Psychopaths feel regret or guilt. They just literally lack the ability to make decisions with this information. This supports the idea that it’s a deficit in general cognitive ability and not empathetic capacity the drives the behaviors we define as psychopathic.
How does that study prove they feel guilt? It proves they are disappointed when they lose, but that’s consistent with their selfishness. By guilt I mean more than just regret, I mean regret for harming others even when they benefit: compassion.
But even then that disability could be due to decision making issues not necessarily emotional issues. As it is well known that Psychopaths do understand emotions and feel them.
I mean there’s a reason psychopaths tend to have lower IQs. They’re inability to “do” is probably associated with this
Or their decision making issues could be emotional not cognitive. For example if you don’t feel fear, you’re going to take reckless risks.
No one ever claimed psychopaths feel no emotions. If that were true they wouldn’t even move. The emotion they lack is compassion & perhaps fear.
Both autists & psychopaths hurt people but the psychopath hurts you because he doesn’t care how you feel while the autist hurts you because he doesn’t know how you feel. Caring vs knowing is the difference between emotion vs cognition
The psychopaths we know about are the ones dumb enough to end up in jail so of course they have low IQs on average. The smart ones become billionaires, surgeons, CEOs and president of the United States.
But even if they are dumb on average (I doubt they’ve tested representative samples) it’s not because psychopathy is a cognitive impairment, it’s becsuse emotional impairments predict cognitive ones because both reflect neurological dysfunction. For the same reason I’d expect sexual deviants to have low IQs even though sexual deviance is clearly not a cognitive disability
Well I have shown studies that Indictate without emotions you can’t make decisions at all. So maybe you’re right
At the same time you’ve also provided references that indicate there isn’t some secret class of high IQ criminals. Though I can’t remember the citation.
The citation was The Bell Curve book. Elite psychopaths don’t have to commit that many crimes because to paraphrase Nixon, it’s not a crime when an elite does it
@pumpkinhead
The difference between Indian Americans vs Ashkenazim is that Indian Americans come from the general Indian genepool (with all of the nuances of distinct subgroups made by endogamy in mind) while Ashkenazim are a relatively recent 3-way mixture between Levantines, southern Europeans and central Europeans who have been bottlenecked like crazy. I don’t think that it makes much sense to compare the Ashkenazim to the general Semites as a result. Instead of making comparisons of genetic groups, if you want to compare a subgroup of whites to Ashkenazim in performance/intelligence, you could just compare Anglican whites to Ashkenazim without the genetic details needed for an analogy to the general Semites.
@pp
That classification is outdated. There is much more to human diversity than Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid. The intra-Caucasoid breakdown makes even less sense. There are entire dark Caucasoid groups that are more distant from one another than they are to white Caucasoids so they don’t make a common dark Caucasoid genetic clade. It is much better to think along the lines of genetic clusters, in this case, there would be multiple ‘dark Caucasoid’ groups.
That classification is outdated. There is much more to human diversity than Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid.
There is much more genetic diversity but genetics is a poor way to classify races because any two populations that become isolated for long enough will diverge genetically on neutral DNA even if they preserve the phenotype of their shared ancestor.
Andaman islanders are genetically non-negroid yet they’ve almost perfectly preserved the negroid morphology they inherited from the original out of Africa migrants 70 kya so based on evolutionary taxonomy (as opposed to cladistics) they are negroid. Evolutionary taxonomy doesn’t insist all taxa be monophyletic.
PP
“Right, but there’s a correct and incorrect way to subdivide. My way might not be the correct way, but here it is: The human species can be subdivided into at least 3 main races: negroids, caucasoids, and mongoloids. Now Caucasoids themselves can also probably be subdivided into 3 main categories: whites (europeans), dark Caucasoids (Middle Easterners & South Asians) & Ashkenazim (a hybrid of whites and dark caucasoids that split-off into a new subrace distinct from both parent populations).”
Well, this is the point i was trying to make, the idea should be that we ensure that we are drawing the lines correctly and fairly. As for the 3 main groups I agree, beyond that it is a little above my expertise while i think even with the experts there seems to be a fair amount of disagreement mainly due to the inaccuracy of genetic testing and clustering methodology.
“There are always other factors that can negate an IQ advantage, but generally speaking smart races will enslave less smart races because of superior technology and strategy. IQ never predicts anything with 100% certainty.
Well when comparing populations of similar IQ (different European ethnic groups), by definition IQ will tend not to be what makes the difference because the IQ difference is trivial. It’s like comparing creative achievements of whites vs East Asians. Because the East Asian > white IQ gap is only 5 points, other factors have allowed whites to be more creative.”
Well i think we are much more in agreement on this issue than we realize. The main gist of the point i was making is that its a good idea not to make absolute statements regarding the correlation of “dominance” and intelligence. There is so much more at play than we are able to process even if we has perfect historical knowledge. Do I think dominance correlates with intelligence all else equal, of course, however the real world doesn’t quite function like a controlled experiment so the idea of “all else equal” is very very hard to account for. When it comes to such great disparities as there are between blacks and whites in the present, past and distant past then there is simply no discussion to be had unless you are brain dead or pushing some sort of agenda. Clearly white dominance over blacks(whether taken or paid for) is just confirmation of what we already know and probably have known for millennia.
“if one believes that all mental abilities are positively correlated and that moral judgement is a mental ability then evil people with high IQs are like idiot savants.
saints must display “heroic virtue” according to the popish religion. this is like having a very high “moral reasoning” subscore on a truly general test of mental ability…but part of the test would have to be biography as psychopaths can answer correctly…but they can’t DO correctly.”
I think you are confusing intelligence with temperament and social disposition. If one has a pro social and kind hearted disposition then their intelligence will facilitate this facet of their personality such that in the eyes of most they will display great moral fortitude, some might confuse this with some sort of superior moral/social intelligence but the primary driving factor is their social orientation and personality while their intelligence only allows them to express this facet of their personality more competently and more intelligibly.
Flaminhotcheetos
“The difference between Indian Americans vs Ashkenazim is that Indian Americans come from the general Indian genepool (with all of the nuances of distinct subgroups made by endogamy in mind) while Ashkenazim are a relatively recent 3-way mixture between Levantines, southern Europeans and central Europeans who have been bottlenecked like crazy. I don’t think that it makes much sense to compare the Ashkenazim to the general Semites as a result. Instead of making comparisons of genetic groups, if you want to compare a subgroup of whites to Ashkenazim in performance/intelligence, you could just compare Anglican whites to Ashkenazim without the genetic details needed for an analogy to the general Semites.”
I was using that as an example to illustrate a point rather than a case study in and of itself. The idea is that how we draw our comparisons matter and we must ensure we do so fairly. Furthermore with regard to Ashkenazi Jews(so that we are doing a like for like comparison) there have been studies that show that the IQ of Israeli Ashkenazis is only around 103 while Ashkenazis in the US up to 115. If one considers the hardships they had to endure in the previous century(s) and arduous journey to get to the US with all the racism that existed back then it is quite easy to see how the US Ashkenazis that survived it all punch so well above their weight. Similarly Indian Americans were simply mostly selected for their brains(University admissions) and over the decades created one of the most accomplished communities in the US and are worlds apart from their genetic brethren in the subcontinent. For this reason only a fool would use US Indians as a proxy of what Indians in general are capable of and IMO we similarly need to be careful how we evaluate Ashkenazis as a whole across the world.
ph, keep in mind that there are more Ashkenazim in New York than there are in Israel, so it’s not as if the ones outside Israel are some elite subset, but rather they’re the majority. As for the average IQ of U.S. Jews; the highest credible estimate I’ve seen is 113 from the NLYS dataset cited in The Bell Curve, but that was using total U.S. norms. If one uses U.S. white norms, they’d be closer to 110. But they have a very uneven profile and are actually below the white mean in several areas, so what their exact IQ is depends a lot on what test you use.
@pumpkinperson
I don’t think that the Andamanese look like negroids aside for the dark skin colour. Even if we ignore the height, the Andaman people are still brachycephalic and hypsicranic- a combination very rare among African negroids and also tend to be mesoskelic as opposed to the tropical forest adapted more brachyskelic/longer limbed African negroids. There is also the fact that their dental patterns are nothing like those found in sub saharan Africans. This is a comparison between a superficial classification vs one that takes all of the differences into account.
And yes, while two isolated groups begin the differentiate, the degree is important to consider. Caucasoid groups are isolated for a long time but they are even more temporally distantly isolated from east Asian Mongoloids so they will always be closer to one another than they are to Mongoloids unless we bring in mixture with other populations. However the same isn’t true within the dark-white Caucasoid classification because certain dark Caucasoids have been isolated much longer from one another than they have been from white Caucasoids.
@pumpkinhead
Alright, I agree, the details are important.
PP
Fair enough, correct me if I’m wrong though, is the IQ of Ashkenazi’s in Israel not around 103? I do remember running into a study with that figure but I’m not sure how reliable it was or whether that figure has been replicated.
According to Richard Lynn it is indeed 103 in Israel (white norms).
where’re all my INCREDIBLY sexy comments about thelonious?
i was declared an essential commenter by steve mnuchin.
the cover version by the only authentic black genius…
The only authentic black genius is this:
high vs low culture peepee.
for example:
jeff stryker’s dildo is high culture.
https://www.salon.com/1999/03/18/feature_446/
Oprah’s mass culture, not low culture. Low culture would probably be professional wrestling, gangsta rap and those UFC fights you love so much.
“Oprah is the only black genius”
Lmao shut up.
What is a “genius”?
“genius” as used above is easily defined for people with normal hair.
“genius” = someone who displays mental abilities of one kind or another which appear to almost everyone or to everyone as super-human, beyond the best one can even imagine he, himself, or any human could possess…anyone who displays un-believable, in-credible mental performance and does so routinely.
genius is 2 deviations above me.
look at my normal hair. it is 2 months old.
That’s very vague.
Unfortunately I agree with Mugabe it’s not really vague.
Einstein’s a genius.
it’s 100% NOT vague for anyone with normal hair.
rr has the mind of a 12 year old girl.
Bro, don’t worry. Hair transplants exist.
Are “geniuses” defined by IQ scores or (novel) accomplishments?
More than likely someone with novel intellectual accomplishments will score high on an IQ test.
So I’m supposed to go with a “more than likely” here?
Yeah.
Einstein was really good at math, really good at manipulating and visualizing objects in his head, had an expansive vocabulary. All of these things IQ measures. So there’s a pretty good chance he would have scored high.
I mean you can’t deny that Scholastic achievement tests are convergent with IQ tests.
rr has an article on so-called “beautiful italian women”. but are there any such women?
does rr find women with beards more attractive than women with no facial hair?
Is “IQ” driving these accomplishments? If so, how?
Because, as I’ve been harping for years, they’re different versions of the same test.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-Is-to-B-as-C-Is-to-Anything-at-All%3A-The-Illogic-Schwartz/37a01c192b6f653af3c7bfc06bbb0d399501c227
“IQ measures”
Question-begging.
How is “IQ” driving these accomplishments?
“they’re different versions of the same test.”
And?
Also that’s not question-begging.
One’s IQ is an outcome—“intelligence” is a descriptor—of their life experiences, not a cause of them.
arnold was a genius at doing bodybuilding poses.
i don’t like the use of “genius” to refer to people with ceiling test scores, but you can use it however you like. for example, i have a jeff stryker dildo i call “genius”.
Is a “genius at doing bodybuilding poses” the same as a “genius” in the psychological parlance?
What’s funny about the title of Terman’s book “Genetic Studies of Genius” is that he begged the question that “genes influence intelligence”, but Ceci and Henderson showed that the IQ/income relationship is a function of social class/school and not IQ.
I bring this up because that’s what “genius” is “defined” as, as “measured” by IQ tests (question-begging).
Social class & education are both predictive of income independently of IQ, but Bowles and Nelson (1974) showed IQ still predicts income independently of both (though to a lesser degree)
Also it’s hard to infer causation unless people of different IQs are randomly assigned to different social classes and education levels
Bowles and Nelson estimated IQs due to the assumed relationship between economic and educational status. Read page 48 and see their limitations. Ceci and Henderson, as we discussed a few months back, showed that IQ is not as predictive as success in life as once thought. Ceci and Henderson actually replicated other studies showing the same non-relationship.
This, of course, doesn’t change Terman’s question-begging title of his book.
And as we discussed more recent studies have found that IQ has far more independent predictive power if income is measured over many years, not just one. But I agree that social class & education also matter, perhaps even more
genius is subjective, but the subjective experience is objective, esepcially when so many others have had the same reaction/subjective experience.
i think it was jensen who said that test ceiling scorers usually aren’t geniuses, but for each field there may be a threshold test score such that those who score below it are very unlikely to be geniuses.
a genius is someone who does things with his mind such that the subjective experience is “how is that even possible for a human to do that?”
in phsyical terms thelonious monk is like a guy who can bench press 10,000 pounds.
i recall frank deford described michael johnson as a genius after he obliterated mennea’s record in 1996. the problem with such a description is these athletic records are always soon beaten. except secretariat’s of course.
a genius is a FREAK.
By asking what IQ tests measure you’re begging the question of (1) what information processing is required for test solutions and (2) what psychological processes are involved in the solution to the question.
——-
What do you think the project TALENT dataset did? What do you think Ceci and Henderson’s work shows?
Trump’s hair is genius.
To answer RR question: mentally take round peg and put it in the imagined round hole.
IQ measures manipulation ability. (pattern upon pattern)
It does not measure the ability to mentally create new things.
They correlate but are not the same.
a person with high verbal IQ may be able to form complex narratives but this does not mean they have good story writing ability. (quant/quality)
Convergent vs divergent intelligence happens in discussions of creativity.
The brain is a network, IQ tries to map it to convergent solutions.
We do not know how the brain network maps to divergent intelligence/creativity.
Map between the network and the test.
i mean if you listen to those two monk renditions and still say monk sucks…
THEN YOU SUCK!
and i do NOT go in for the black shit.
i mean blue eyed soul is better than soul.
like WAY!
monk is DIFFERENT.
monk is UNIQUE.
monk is an AUTHENTIC GENIUS.
the orange county brothers reminds me of this scene from Stryker Force…
the young tom cruise had a beautiful face…
but he was a midget….
women are so shallow.
shitting on a canvas is also ‘authentic’ and ‘different.’
why fight the first impulse of ‘this is noise’
because people say otherwise
monk is the ultimate triumph of social construction
mug vindicates SJWs everywhere
IDIOT!
monk is NOT the emperor’s new clothes anymore than heidegger. that’s just what idiots have to tell themselves. monk and heidegger are NOT Fashionable Nonsense. in jazz you’d have to go to ornette coleman for that. maybe you have the two confused.
i knew nothing about monk when i listened to his Trio album when i was 15 and i couldn’t believe my ears.
it was only much later that i learned monk was a “figure” and not something enjoyed only by me and a few others.
in adolescents many go through a phase where they listen to lots of music. the dumb kids listened to comtemporary music and wore t-shirts advertising their favorite band. the smart kids listened to everything. my parents had a yuge record collection of all sorts of music.
Smart people are stupid because they love patterns so much they create them out of thin air.
They cant believe a thing could be because of nonsense.
I say it it is.
Muggy says it and it is not. But only because, so muggy says, everyone is too stupid to do it the right way.
He cant accept that he is seeing the right way.
i accept that i am seeing what is there because i have aquiline vision.
all you have is an aquiline nose….but only in shape…
your sense of smell is the worst of all [redacted by pp, may 9, 2020]
drrr!
maybe you don’t see things as clearly as you think.
you don’t seem to consider that you could be wrong.
and if you are wrong in your vision, how disastrous would the consequences be?
there is some percent change you are wrong.
and if you are wrong then the result of your viewpoint is tyranny.
the law necessitates tolerance of other jurisprudential views as a matter of course.
i can smell you a mile away, muggy the terrible.
monk and heidegger have two things in common.
1. heidegger was and still is accused of obscurantism and of writing gibberish or at least saying uninteresting quotidian things in way too “interesting” ways, disguising his vacuity with “verbiage”.
2. in terms of critical commentary heidegger is beyond wittgenstein in volume and thus OBJECTIVELY is the greatest philosopher of the 20th c.
Top Gun wasn’t just a shitty movie.
it’s like THE movie of generation X.
when i first saw it i didn’t get the OBVIOUS gay stuff. too young.
in that bar scene the tallest guy would’ve gotten the girls, but he sounded very gay…
sounding gay is yuge clit shrinker.
the yuge thing about movies is…
gay guys think they can conceal tom cruise’s, al pacino’s midget body…
AND…
male movie stars have to appeal to women AND men…
the midget-ude of movie stars can be concealed by not un-concealing it.
I remember watching Jack teacher with my dad a while back. That scene where Tom cruise is walking in the club and just towers over everyone had us straight geeking out.
What movies did they try to make al Pacino taller?
He seemed short I. The Irishman, The Godfather, Scarface, etc.
Reacher**
I think the business of enslaving people was dull and not worth for the people organizing the trade (You had to live there in the first place and do many expeditions) And many people who were enslaving black people were the Lançados who were half-Jewish half-black Portuguese. So the Lancados could have an IQ of 97 enough to do this trade but not enough to compete with the white and Jewish elite who were in the trade.
The capture was badly run and 80% of the deaths occurred in that segment of the value chain and only 20% was in the maritime transport and in the first years in the plantation. The worst part was the storage of people in the port when they were waiting for the exchange, even more than the capture and transport to coastal area.
It would be perfectly sensible to have half Jews half black do this part.
It would be the same distinction as finance versus industry today.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lançados
Is this the monk Mugabe keeps referencing?
Hey Pumpkin. You previously mentioned that the SAT seemed to be a better proxy of verbal IQ on the WAIS than performance IQ. Why do you perceive that to be the case when half of the SAT is math? Is it because not all of the SAT math section is geometry?
Hey Pumpkin. You previously mentioned that the SAT is a better proxy for verbal IQ on the WAIS than performance IQ. Why do you perceive that to be the case when half of the SAT is math? Is it because more of math is crystallized than fluid? Does grammar and reading comprehension contribute to the verbal IQ correlation?
Both language and math require manipulating symbols (words & numbers respectively) so both seem more related to verbal IQ than to traditional performance IQ (manipulation of objects hence the term performance because you were actually doing something rather than just answering a question)
Traditionally verbal IQ included an arithmetic subtests which is mental math.
Of course the WAIS subtests have changed and are no longer subdivided into verbal and performance. Some of the newer non-verbal subtests like figure weights and matrix reasoning are unlike performance tests proper and seem more related to math. Indeed factor analysis now shows a fluid abstract cluster emerging in the new WAIS which can further be subdivided into quantitative (figure weights & arithmetic) & non-quantitative (matrix reasoning)
Thanks Pumpkin. What do you think about the new SAT (post-2016) and its correlation to IQ? Do you think the correlation’s not as robust as it was in the past 20 years due to the changes made 4 years ago?
I don’t know enough about the changes they made, people said the post-1995 SAT was less g loaded that the pre-recenteted version but the 2 versions correlate 0.9+. These tests are only useful if they predict college GPA which means they can’t reduce the g loading too much
Pumpkin, I know that the College Board administered changes to the test in 1995, but they also overhauled the test in 2005 (removal of analogies and quantitative comparison questions) and in 2016 (major changes, isolated vocabulary questions scrapped in favor of vocabulary-in-context questions, puzzle-like math questions replaced with “real-world scenario” word problems and algebraic manipulation). The current 2016 edition resembles the ACT in terms of content. Would the SAT then STILL be reasonably correlated to an IQ test? While the pre-1995 and post-1995 editions have a correlation of 0.9+ to each other, would it be reasonable to expect the pre-2016 and post-2016 tests to have the same 0.9+ correlation?
“the new WAIS which can further be subdivided into quantitative (figure weights & arithmetic) & non-quantitative (matrix reasoning)”
quantitative (130 & 105)
& non-quantitative (120)
I cannot do arithmetic well because I have a small digit span.
I forget the numbers before I can calculate an answer.
What I have found useful in mental math is chunking.
order of operations and whatever FW is good for.
Michael Dorf is a shitlib retard but he had an interesting blogpost on Clarence Thomas today. Apparently he’s been contributing a lot more to oral arguments now that they’re being done remotely.
I actually wish more Justices would shut up like Thomas does. Interrupting the lawyers every two seconds accomplishes nothing.
http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2020/05/it-turns-out-clarence-thomas-is-no.html#more
It’s amazing how anyone could possibly oppose original intent, especially after what has happened over the last 75 years.
Every major social problem in the U.S. today has been made worse by activist judges.
the phrase ‘activist judge’ is a non-sequitur
people who believe in the concept of an activist judge vs. a non-activist judge are retarded.
law doesn’t exist until it’s applied.
all judging is activist judging.
there are two goals:
(1) do what I want (2) preserve legitimacy.
original intent, textualism, constitutionalism, etc. etc. are just buzzwords and frameworks for justifying certain results in a way that preserves legitimacy.
i oppose people who believe original intent is a real thing that exists.
because they are scary.
and likely believe in Santa Claus.
Austin Swank is our resident JIDF troll. Dont pay attention to him
.
swank’s arguments are so bad i can’t believe he could ever win a jury trial. unless the jury was composed exclusively of jewish lesbian law professors.
my brain tells my hands what to do. my brain communicates to my hands via electrical signals sent along nerve fibers which connect my brain to my hands.
legislation = communication of brain to hands. hands = regulators, law enforcement, judges, etc. nerve fibers = legal code. common law and precedent = gay bathhouse. american judiciary and lawyers = egomaniacs, meglomaniacs, psychoatphs who go into bathhouse blindfolded.
Well yeah. Legitimacy is part of it.
But my main reason is that I don’t want to give the contemporary legal establishment free rein to mold society to their liking . [redacted by pp, may 9, 2020]
Mug of Pee’s analogy is spot on. We’re at the point where you can use
“precedent” to justify anything you want.
We were always at that point.
If the law I’d what you say it is muggy…why does the world work the way I say it does?
At some point you need to grow up and call noise noise.
what “point”?
at some point you have to grow up and stop being a lawyer.
maybe you could transition.
I say what things are. Things work as I say they do.
You say things should be a certain way.
But that’s like …just your opinion man.
the way “things” are in human affairs is always subject to change.
swank’s morality is “do unto others before they do unto you. everyone else is a psychopath so i have to be a psychopath too.” just another guinea gangster pos. his hero is roy cohn.
the categorical imperative implies mugabe is right and swank is evil.
You cant change anything if you don’t know how anything works or have the temerity to confront things as they are.
The categorical imperative is stupid.
“Where can I find good victims?”
“I cant lie so I’ll tell you!:
kant misinterpreted his own dictum idiot.
can you say anything without lying?
swank’s never read the NT. all he knows about jesus he “learned” from his rabbi.
kant misinterpreted his own dictum. [the] idiot.
fixed that for you.
muggy cannot see that law is something that must hold his own pronouncements on what law is and his opposing brother’s pronouncement in the same space.
more still.
in that space, he and his enemy have to co-exist civilly.
so the law cannot be what muggy thinks it is, because muggy thinks the law is only correctly done in one way. if that were true then there would be no polis.
all hail muggy, destroyer of worlds.
“the categorical imperative” is a fancy way of saying “the golden rule”.
No it isnt.
Leave Rome for the Romans.
Don’t do anything I wouldn’t do. – Kant (CI)
so now jesus was a roman? or by “roman” you mean (((roman))).
the one holy catholic and apostolic church is headed by the bishop of constantinople, not the pope and his cardinals, who like all italian men, wish they were women and thus believe that mary is the messiah, not jesus.
you’d have to be autistic not to see that the two statements are identifcal and that neither implies one must tell a would be murderer where his victims are…unless they killed jesus and the would be murderers are ss…then it’s cool.
an indulgence for swank which takes 10,000 years off purgatory:
he can visit ed meese in san diego and ask him for forgiveness.
swank: attorney general meese…wow. you’re really tall…
meese: only 5’10″…who are you?
swank: i have made a pilgrimage to san diego to ask for your forgiveness…
meese [looking frightened]: …uhhhhh…what?
swank: please forgive me for ever fighting original intent.
meese: but i myself now promote original meaning.
swank: oh…excuse me…[swank soils himself and walks off shoulders slumped sniffling.]…i’m too late…10,000 years at least of blowing scalia’s in purgatory…
The cognitive imperative is Universal morality.
The golden rule is not universal.
Not everyone is a protestant.
Am I getting this right?
Every culture has its own version of the golden rule.
Every person has there own version of universal morality.
How can universal morality be the same it it is all different from person to person culture to culture.
Is swanks universal morality the same as mugs universal morality.
Is mugs golden rule the same as animekittys golden rule.
Joe biden did [redacted by pp, may 9, 2020]. Not sure who I would prefer between biden and trump.
Why is this redacted? This is all over the news.
I remember reading that women were accusing George hw bush of harassment as well. Some of these politicians really think they are untouchable. Hw has a really big skeleton in the closet with what happened to [redacted by pp, may 9, 2020]
Ron unz has been pushing this theory that john mccain was actually a traitor and that his behaviour during Vietnam is actually being used to blackmail him into supporting whatever israel wants.
There are so many skeletons in all these politicians closets that you could make the argument they are all being blackmailed.
Denny Hastert was caught touching children.
And we cant forget about pizza gate …
The one most likely being blackmailed is Bill Clinton (and by proxy Hillary) given all the time he spent with Epstein. That would certainly explain why they went from hippie gentiles in the 1960s to strongly supporting the Iraq war (though almost all politicians supported it to appease the big campaign contributors).
I hope Epstein didn’t get any dirt on trump during the decades they hung out but it would explain him ripping up the Iran deal (though that might be better explained by incompetence, Obama hate, & pandering to big donors like Sheldon Adelson)
The problem with blackmail theories is they’re a bit redundant. Politicians are already bribed to support elite interests. Blackmailing them too seems unnecessary in most cases.
But the Epstein case is strong evidence many are blackmailed & there’s historical precedent
I have a lot of respect for ron but anytime I spend time on unz.com I start feeling angry at the jews. It’s quite funny when you consider ron is a jew himself. So I’ve tried to avoid that website.
Like I have always said though – some conspiracy theories are true and it takes a good mind like unz or sailer to decide which ones are legit and which ones are fake or worse, planted.
Evangelicals are the biggest conspiracy theorists (especially post-Epstein). many are obsessed with the idea that Hollywood is run by a satanic cult of child traffickers who drink baby blood to look young. Their proof of this is the 2020 documentary Out of Shadows directed by mike smith
Evangelicals tend to have low IQ & schizophrenic traits.
Didn’t mikey that half black dude that went to live in hollywood believe in the child blood drinking stuff?
Probably
The funny thing is that Evangelicals always use some nonsense religion for their conspiracies like Masonism, Satanism, etc. when there are much better options in plain sight.
Some of those conspiracies are probably ops.
They’re useful idiots for the neocons & huge supporters of neocon wars. Seeing so many dumb whites makes me almost question HBD
You’re the one with the photographic memory….
It’s quite funny when you consider ron is a jew himself.
dude! how big is your (israel) government check?
you’re OBVIOUSLY jewish. just like mike enoch and eric striker.
Marco Rubio is also being blackmailed over his homosexuality. Theres photos of him at foam parties lol.
Did you redact those two sentences because [redacted by pp, may 9, 2020]
I redacted it because virtually no one on this blog is a white supremacist though some of us are mongoloid supremacists (in a scientific way) & pill is a huge Jewish supremacist (even though he’s not pro-jewish)
fair enough. neither am i, but i’m sure his definition is a lot broader than yours.
Well he probably wants to silence any politically incorrect speech because historically it has led to bad things & while I sympathize which such views (if they’re sincerely held) one can’t fully understand the world without discussing a few taboo topics as you know
the distinction between affective and cognitive is artificial.
or so said some indian american neuroscientist i heard once.
“the brain isn’t a thinking machine with feelings. it’s a feeling machine with thoughts.”
or something like that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V._S._Ramachandran
dont know what he meant but intelligence is useless without feelings because intelligence is the part of the brain that solves problems & a problem is just whatever makes us FEEL uncomfortable. No feelings, no problems to solve & we’d just sit there all day looking stupid
Emotions synchronize the brain with the outside world. This makes manipulation of the outside world possible. Manipulation in the right context maximizes survival and procreation and parenting strategy.
Synchronizing with other people / predicting them is social intelligence.
again the best explanation seems to be race or racism…NOT culture…
that is, if you know these high achieving south asians…
they’re white. they act white.
well at least italian.
but china people are noticeably different in personality…unless they’re japanese americans…who are basically indistinguishable from whites…and yes! you can tell the difference by the way they look…japanese americans are easily distinguished from korean and chinese americans…at least easily distinguished by me…
AND…
there’s the raj and the strange apparent death of the british empire.
rhodes intended the scholarship named for him to be a means of selecting world rulers like mustapha mond.
this isn’t a secret…
monk is like salad nicoise.
he’s not candy or beef jerky.
a sophisticated palette is a thing…
for example…almost all wine SUCKS…
brandy SUCKS…
meds can’t do liquor…except port, because british controlled pork-n-cheese vineyards…
all the sophistication in alcoholic beverages is from nw europe.
beer + whiskey.
peepee should’ve used her photographic memory to correct my spelling of “palate”.
belgian (flemish) monk beer vs busch light is a (makes me laugh) difference.
differece between plonk (noun) and haute medoc is ZILCH.
why?
because beer is actually a MUCH MORE COMPLEX beverage than wine.
like MUCH!
meds are the ones who do socially constructed reality, not nw euros.
Pumpkin, if someone has equal mathematical and verbal ability, but a much lower spatial ability, would speed of learning in general be affected, or only for spatial stuff?
Only for spatial stuff
No way haha