Kanye West has recently been banned from social media for saying “I’m a bit sleepy tonight but when I wake up I’m going death con 3 on JEWISH PEOPLE” (defcon 3 is what he meant).
In my opinion, among gentiles, anti-Semitism is a sign of schizophrenia while philo-semitism is a sign of autism.
But unlike many black Americans who simplistically blame white supremacy for all their problems, or QAnon Americans who imagine bizarre Satanic cults, West at least is smart enough to know which group really has power in America, however recklessly lumping them all together in a way that incites hatred is reprehensible. Already, a major bank has told West to take his money elsewhere and Adidas is being pressured to drop him as a partner, and Forbes must decide whether he remains a billionaire.
So what is his IQ? He reminds me a lot of commenter Loaded in that his mental illness makes him seem way dumber than he is. Back in October 2018, West claimed to have seen a psychologist and obtained an IQ of 133, which he equated to the 98th percentile (to be precise it’s the 98.6 percentile).
This actually sounds quite plausible. Forbes proclaimed West’s net worth to be $2 billion, crowning him the richest black of his generation. Assuming there are about 8 million blacks in generation X, if there were a perfect correlation between IQ and lifetime earnings, we’d expect West’s IQ to be 77 points above the black American mean of 88 (U.S. norms) (one in 8 million level), but since the correlation is more like 0.5, we’d expect it to be 0.5(77) + 88 = 127 (only 6 points below his self-reported score).
Another reason for thinking West is high IQ is the quality of his lyrics. In 2000 he wrote a song about his professor mother but refused to release it until he could perform on Oprah’s show. After five long years of trying to get on her show, he finally got his wish.
The song contains the following stanza which I thought was quite clever:
My mama told me go to school, get your doctorate
Something to fall back on, you could profit with
But still supported me when I did the opposite
Sadly, despite his moments of genius, Rushton would have likely considered West to be genetically inferior. Even though Rushton “would imagine that a lot of these black entertainers are very intelligent”, he believed the early time period (200,000 years ago), when Africans branched off the evolutionary tree meant they were cursed with other deficiencies like oversized genitalia, and so even though an individual might contradict the racial stereotype in one area (West has a high IQ), he would likely regress to his racial mean in other areas (West is mentally unstable which Rushton viewed as a primitive trait).
Unlike, another black billionaire Oprah, West does not have a huge hat size:


Indeed West’s brain may even be smaller than Donald Trump’s, which means he likely doesn’t have the cognitive reserve to protect his IQ from neurological attacks like the bipolar he claims to have:

Assuming West really did score 133 on an IQ test in 2018, his IQ has likely since declined (at least when unmedicated). In an edited out scene from his recent Tucker Carlson interview, West claimed there were fake children in his home sent to sexualize his own kids. One of these fake kids was the child of a business associate and West knew the child could not be hers because it was so much smarter than her. LOL
IMO Kanye’s head looks bigger than the average black’s. Overall despite his large jaw from the front, he seems to have slightly more “dignified” features, like less prognathism and a flat forehead. I would guess his genotype of his head is much closer to whites or asians than most blacks are. But obviously not nearly as big as Oprah’s. And of course, most whites wear regular hats as well. Kanye is also only 173 cm tall, while Oprah is 169 and Trump is 188.
Maybe his IQ comes hand in hand with his mental illness and hotheadedness, with him absorbing and processing information more than his brain can handle (it’s unable to emotionally stabilize). Probably causes a lot of personal problems and even short-term financial problems but can be harnassed into career success.
He definitely seems like one of the smartest mainstream rappers.
Maybe his IQ comes hand in hand with his mental illness and hotheadedness, with him absorbing and processing information more than his brain can handle (it’s unable to emotionally stabilize).
I don’t think his IQ is causing his mental illness (smart people tend to be MORE mentally stable), however certain schiz traits, when combined with high IQ, can cause creative genius.
There was a study that found that low latent inhibition (trouble supressing irrelevant thoughts) causes psychosis in dumb people who get overwhelmed, but in people smart enough to process it, causes creative achievements.
Fair enough, but I do think it would make sense that given enough processing in the brain there would be an overload effect that causes mental illness. Obviously, if a mental illness manifests, probably that “cognition overload” would no longer cause an intelligence or creativity boost. But I understand your point that it’s a myth that IQ genius and mental illness are correlated.
I mean the brain is not the same as your biceps, but it could probably overtrained in a similar way, causing burn-out in some people, but maybe mental illness symptoms in others. I guess it just sounds like intuition and not empirical science, but I have read recently that Ashkenazis have increased genetic propensity for schizophrenia:
https://www.haaretz.com/2013-11-26/ty-article/.premium/ashkenazi-gene-increases-schizophrenia/0000017f-e04b-d75c-a7ff-fccfa3e10000
Of course increased propensity of a disorder does not equate to having that disorder. So perhaps having the markers but also having increased IQ helps one deal with stuff like low latent inhibition.
But I think in Kanye’s case and others that I’m thinking of it’s not precisely actually being mentally ill (as in actual deterioration of brain matter), but more like a personality disorder, like extreme moods or lack thereof. I imagine your brain is more free to solve certain problems when you don’t have to regulate your emotions.
I mean if you look at Elon Musk, he’s hyperconscientious when it comes to his work at Tesla, but in regular life he’s had 3 wives and 8 kids, and often sleeps in random places.
It’s tautological that all else being equal higher IQ people are better able to deal with mood swings, unneccesary thoughts, etc. and I think there are obviously certain genes and phenotypes that are higher IQ without any other mental drawback (larger brain size is an obvious one) but that doesn’t preclude there being a possible mental balance between two mental functions like emotional regulation and IQ, all else equal.
most people state the most obvious things on here and claim it to be theirs and are stupid enough to believe that what they are saying is novel.
no one here actually brings up any points that are new in any way! and its always repeated over and over again like a mantra. what a lack of competence.
True but that’s kind of the way culture works. It usually evolves slowly with ideas being carved out more clearly over time.
I often see one or two articles about something and then start seeing a bunch of people repeat the same ideas. Then again, that could just be me noticing those ideas more.
Also there’s a difference between something being pretty obvious to a lot of people and it actually being proven mathematically or shown through experimentation.
That races think and act differently is pretty obvious but the specific reasons why are very interesting when you try to investigate it. I always watch Stand-Up with people making jokes about X race acting in Y manner but often it’s pretty cringe because they obviously have very little understanding of HBD.
Youre not stating anything new is what im saying. You are corrupting the message by thinking youre doing so when youre just another brick in the wall sadly.
Never did I say I was saying something new. I’m just making a general point at times. 99.999999% of things said are not new in any absolute sense.
youre not spreading truth out there just your opinions on different ideas that could be true in certain cases i hope you know that.
Kanye West isnt even a smart guy. he is probably as retarded as any other black. and Oprah does not have an IQ of 140 either. that is a myth. both are house negroes.
they cant serve their communities and their intentions are self-benefitting. how can you justify this as a source of “genius” when you nothing on the matter Pumpkin?
and Oprah does not have an IQ of 140 either. that is a myth.
It’s not a myth; it’s my estimate based on the recollections of her 4th grade teacher. To be the most fluent reader in a class full of white kids a year older, while also keeping up in math is impressive. Naep stats from that era show only one in 2000 blacks were that advanced and one in 2000 level among blacks is about one in 200 level among Americans as a whole, or IQ 138, which I round to 140.
they cant serve their communities
She put a black family in White house, put a black woman her best friend Gayle) on morning news, put 800 black men through Morehouse, built schools in Africa & homes in New Orleans after Katrina. Put Toni Morrison on best-seller list & brough black novels to screen. Back when Oprah started in 1986, she was virtually the ONLY black on mainstream TV, today it’s hard to find a show that doesn’t have black people on it. Of course media was headed in that direction anyway but her enormous success helped accelerate it.
Pumpkin that is not how logical thought works. just because you say something doesnt make it true. you need to humble yourself PP.
never said it was proven true, that’s why it’s an estimate
Negative 120.
Musical and lyric skill may be more of a talent than a marker of overall g, although there must be some correlation, I’m not sure this indicates high global iq for Kanye. I think his lyrics tend to be really clever too, btw. I would say he’s my favorite black rapper.
Also, I agree with the above commenter that his features look rather Caucasian, which I ascribe to high percentage of white genes.
Kanye’s musical ability is a little overrated, in my opinion. I would say that he’s incredibly gifted in producing, but as a rapper, he’s only slightly above average.
And Ye’s antisemitism doesn’t come from the same place as most HBDers. He believes in Afrocentric revisionism. He says that Blacks are the real Jews.
This is what Kanye West thinks he’s doing when he opens his mouth about politics.
…West at least is smart enough to know which group really has power in America…
in the sense jews use the term antisemitism YOU peepee ARE an anti-semite.
so you’re admitting you’re schizophrenic…or are you a black israelite?
white trash music at its best:
in the sense jews use the term antisemitism YOU peepee ARE an anti-semite.
Just because some Jews dishonestly use the term antisemitism as a political weapon to silence legitimate criticism, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t condemn genuine antisemitism when we see it.
Yes great song by Oprah’s cousin.
I grew up on the middle class remake:
does peepee know what “cabal” means? does she know why tulsi picked that word?
this’ll be the LAST time the jews lose. we’ll all live to see it. GLORIOUS!
does peepee know why putin describes the west as “satanic”? he must be white trash? right peepee?
peepee’s idea of not being prole is being PROLE! what a loser. what an ugly black woman loser. sad.
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
does peepee know what “cabal” means? does she know why tulsi picked that word?
Maybe she’s now a Qtard. They use it too.
Tulsi’s too dumb to ponder the JQ, or pretends to be. She said Trump was Saudi Arabia’s bitch.
Jews: You hate them ’cause you ain’t them
I’m gonna eat them.
putin nails it. now he needs to bring back socialism to russia. i’ve never loved a man as much as love vlad.
Mugabe is more intelligent than Philo in the classical sense. However, Philo is multiple SDs above Mugabe regarding social intelligence.
And Philo’s not even that good. He’s just kind of paranoid.
Mugabe is an evangelist, a racist, a Trump supporter, etc. Now he believes Putin, the Russian dictator, will bring socialism to his country. Absolutely zero self-awareness.
^^^YOU LITERALLY CAN’T READ.^^^
Mugabe is an evangelist LIE!, a racist LIE!, a Trump supporter LIE!, etc. Now he believes Putin, the Russian dictator, will bring socialism to his country LIE!.
Absolutely zero self-awareness…of his total inability to read. FACT!
Lol, he’s so angry.
meLo i feel bad for you with all the critical thinking skills you have you still entertain a schizophrenic autist? wtf? you must be in a rut in your life.
Actually, life is pretty good right now. I just enjoy putting Mugabe in his place now and then.
This is incorrect Melo. I’m more of a racist than Mugabe. Mugabe actually loves the blacks. He thinks blacks could be as civilised as whites and east asians given the correct training.
Lol, I didn’t say you were less racist than him, but at least you’re not gullible enough to be a Catholic that thinks Putin would ever install socialism in Russia.
putin nails it. now he needs to bring back socialism to russia. i’ve never loved a man as much as i love vlad. short men can be sexy too LOADED.
the history of humanity is a history of conflict.
what is the ultimate source of this conflict?
or are there many sources?
wild animals (within the same species) kill each other too. wolves and lions are worse than humans.
what are irreconcilable differences between tribes, peoples, or classes?
an hereditist (like peepee claims to be) can understand the most satanic deed ever.
it wasn’t personal.
when it’s me or you reason ends and it’s always you.
you are mentally ill.
as usual the low IQ interpretation of the above is “mugabe is an animal rights extremist and a vegan”.
WRONG!
mugabe’s POINT is:
if my health or survival or that of my immediate family (including my dog) depends on killing animals…including other humans…i will kill them. because i’m NOT suicidal.
what does peepee say about the theory that without carnivory becoming a yuge component of the diet there’d be no humans?
When Putin saw that he was accomplishing nothing, but that instead a riot was breaking out, he took water and washed his hands before the crowd. “I am innocent of this man’s blood,” he said. “You bear the responsibility.” All the people answered, “His blood be on us and on our children!” So Putin released Barabbas to them. But he had Jesus flogged, and handed Him over to be crucified.
no one cares.
nah!
making hard core communism gay is hard. they succeeded.
the gay shop boys’s best was:
nothing compared to the fun those boys had in the baths before…
elvis’s voice (not elvis the person…who was ridiculous) is one of the greatest accomplshments of western civilization.
Not really an Elvis fan but I will agree he had a pretty good voice. He was attractive with a good (manly) voice, and was a decent performer, and could do some songs written by other people justice. Contrast that with Johnny Cash who was more political and had a decent voice but not much range. I don’t like a lot of folk because of that. It basically sacrifices vocal talent and sometimes performing talent for decent lyrics and politics. Kind of cringe.
People hate on Elvis because he was fat and not a songwriter but at least he was a good singer (for that style).
Kanye West is above average and definitely for a black. Puppy who is, has certain types of thinking, automatically thinks just because you are a billionaire you must be smart which is false. West made his money putting his name on products like Trump. He originally made his name in rap. It takes zero intelligence to do that. He probably was advised by jews to do that.
Look, in terms of musical intelligence Kanye is elite. But academically I think Kanye would be a terrible candidate for the Ivy League.
Puppy who is, has certain types of thinking, automatically thinks just because you are a billionaire you must be smart which is false.
No I think the odds of being smart increase as a function of earned income, just as the odds of being a good boxer increase as a function of being tall. In theory a stupid person could earn a billion dollars, but it’s about as likely as a short person being a famous heavyweight boxer.
Same with Oprah. The Jews put her on tv and even put a jewish co-host beside her to introduce her to the audience and push her.
To Oprah’s credit, she has high social intelligence but from an academic perspective I would be surprised if she was any smarter than a typical gentile college student.
Just like Kanye, she made her money by becoming famous. Not by doing business or inventing anything.
Same with Oprah. The Jews put her on tv and even put a jewish co-host beside her to introduce her to the audience and push her.
Jews had nothing to do with it. She ended up with a Jewish co-host because she had been demoted from the evening news for being too emotional, too inexperienced and too black looking and she was placed on a morning talk show to run out her contract.
To everyone’s astonishment, Oprah and her Jewish co-host turned that morning show into ratings gold.
This led to her being recruited to host her own talk show SOLO in Chicago which became so successful it was nationally syndicated:
So you think Lebron James has an IQ over 100 even though hes a billionaire? What about the porn star Kim Kardashian or the street thug Jay Z? All high IQ people according to Puppy…
They got famous and made their money from fame.
But yeah, most billionaires are smart. But not all. And many of these who inherited their billions are probably not smart.
Being a billionaire doesn’t guarantee high intelligence. It just means it’s more likely that you’re smart. I’d be shocked if LeBrons IQ was above 110 or if Kim K’s was above 115 (failed the bar exam like 3 times iirc).
But for every billionaire like LeBron there are 100 others who got rich relying at least in some part on genuinely high intelligence. He’s at the far left tail of the IQ distribution at his level of wealth.
Oh wait I didn’t read the second half of your comment. Whoops.
What even is the correlation between wealth and IQ? Like 0.3-0.4?
Wealth and IQ at the top level, billionaire level, maybe 0.5? Definitely a lot less than between IQ and academic success. Mohammed Bin Salman and Putin are the richest men in the world but neither is a genius.
what the world needs now is more defcon 1s, all out nuclear wars. at least three.
In America something like half of college students can read to the required academic standard. The universities in America basically give you a degree if you pay enough money…e.g. Donald Trump.
America’s biggest advantage over other countries economically may be that it had jews in terms of intellectual horsepower.
Now the jews are destroying education by promoting affirmative action.
Nobody thinks Trump knows anything about economics. I seriously doubt Trump can do even basic applied math or stats. If you asked trump what a bell curve is, he would say its something to do with a telephone.
In America, at least before the internet, beecoming famous was a power jews bestowed on people. Nobody became famous without jewish permission.
I suspect the Apprentice tv series involved jews somewhere somehow so even Donald Trump was a jewish creation.
In America, at least before the internet, beecoming famous was a power jews bestowed on people. Nobody became famous without jewish permission.
You have it backwards. Back when Oprah amassed her fortune in the 1980s and 1990s, media was owned by over 52 entities. But thanks to Bill Clinton signing the Telecommunications Act in 1996, almost everything on American TV, internet and movies is run by 6 monopolies. This made it a lot easier for a few elites to dictate who is and isn’t famous.
I love Kanye for the same reason that I love Bobby Fischer: their pathological honesty. A medicated Kanye would be a shell of a human being, a shadow of what he OUGHT to be.
Shrinks also tried to medicate me. No thanks. The narrowly defined sanity of the merely productive man is nothing to which a self-respecting person should aspire.
Asians have to work horrible hours with no benefits even in 1st world countries like Taiwan and Japan because:
1. The workers don’t organise politically for whatever reason
2. Terms of trade
3. Certain genetic dispositions
4. Culture of worshipping the boss
Puppy would say the Asian worker is doing great because he is working much harder and with no welfare available…this is the way Puppy thinks an economy is supposed to work.
Puppy forgets that most of what 70 millions workers produces goes to about 15 people so it may not have been made in the first place anyway.
There is no such thing as antisemitism. Or Islamaphobia. Or racism. Get that through your head. What you are trying to say is that there is a white tribalism problem.
All human beings are tribal. Especially jews who came up with these words.
This is nonsensical.
Blacks are 5/6 times more likely to get schizo tendencies. I believe having schiz genes makes you better at music.
virtue signalling psychopath springsteen covered the commodores “nightshift”…
neither EVEN CLOSE to as good as the OG by bob seger.
you hear bob seger or mnm…
both from detroit…
if you didn’t know they were white…
PP, I hope you’ll pardon me for double-posting, but I wanted to expand on my point.
Lately I’ve been reading Catholic critiques of the protestant ‘reformers’. I was struck by the dignity which Catholic (and Orthodox) thought attributes even to fallen humanity. Man is something more than a worm born only to toil.
Catholics understand (or at least understood) the value of leisure and self-cultivation (as distinct from modern education, which is little more than extended job-training).
The protestants created a culture as joyless and free of wonder as it is insipid, heartless, and vulgar.
What’s the goal of psychiatric treatment in the modern world? To reduce a man who had the dignity of melancholy to a mush-brained, lever-pulling, smiling automaton. What could be more protestant?
this is an actual photograph of peepee. sad.
A more sophisticated cartoon would replace the black guy with a white soldier and replace the statue of liberty with Saddam Hussein, and have the Jewish guy yelling “terrorist” instead of “racist”
yeah. because america’s domestic policy is GRRRR-EAT. only america’s foreign policy sucks.
you will post this comment or i will never post again.
EVERY PERSONALITY AND COMMENTER HAS IDENTIFIED HIS RACE AND GENDER.
PEEPEE HAS NOT.
BECAUSE EVIL.
America’s crappy domestic policy is part of its charm. America would not be America without it. It’s the ultimate Darwinian struggle.
how many schizophrenic autists are on this blog? how does Mug have so much free time to post such stupid shit all the time?
Why are Americans so philosemitic? I ask the question only rhetorically. It’s because we’re* descended from Anglo-Calvinist mutants (the so-called Puritans).
The orders of the Roman Catholic Church prevented the Jewish subversion of the former Roman Empire for over 1,000 years. The conniving protestant mongrels are responsible for everything that is wrong with the modern world. Joseph de Maistre did – and said – nothing wrong.
*Myself excluded. I am proud to have no recent English ancestors.
You are an incel shithead Neandercel. You have shit genetics that is why girls dont like you!
These cartoons from ‘Ben Garrison’ are fucking hilarious.
A part of Melo dies inside his tiny brain every time he sees a cartoon like this. He knows its true and he is on the side of evil. He sides with the Orcs and the demons.
LOL
Exactly youre on the wrong side. Youre with the orcs.
No fucking way… did Ben actually make that cartoon or is it another imposter that tries to make the old boomercon look like a nazi? (possibly even a fan of his)
the people here are the weirdest people on the Internet. they have no self-respect. if they did they would take a moment to generate ideas that are actually unbiased and serve a purpose rather than the schizophrenic and autistic postings we see all the time on here.
“the people here are the weirdest people on the Internet.”
No, but they’re high in the runnin’
“they have no self-respect.”
Projection.
“if they did they would take a moment to generate ideas that are actually unbiased and serve a purpose rather than the schizophrenic and autistic postings we see all the time on here.”
Let me translate that out of ant and into English for the benefit of the humans present. “AAAAHHHHH THEY SHOULD BE USEFUL LIKE ME! THEY SHOULD PUT IN OVERTIME AT THE FACTORY SO THEY CAN GET PROMOTED TO SUPERVISOR AND MAKE AN EXTRA $2 PER HOUR! AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH”
Haha go suck a dick. You have an inferiority complex the size of fucking china and your dick is probably small.
You have no hope you fuck escorts and have no passion for life just another brick in the wall.
You seem awfully concerned about my sex life, buddy. In fact, you seem unusually interested in me.
I won’t tell you that it’s okay to be gay, but you should at least be honest with yourself 😉
Hes right Loaded. I don’t understand why you even come here. You dont understand any of the articles or the comments. Whats the point? Why cant you post rap videos elsewhere?
no he is not Pill you are a fucking retard in several ways! i understand enough of the articles and comments to give an opinion on them but youre retarded enough to not acknowledge any of it.
[redacted by pp, 2022-10-15]
you are a completely garbage-tier human!
Its clear you don’t understand what schiz or autism are.
You can’t tell someone with autism just from reading their comments like I can.
If you could diagnose autism from comments alone, you wouldn’t conflate the disease with nerdiness or gullibility so frequently.
The reality is that, at the most, there are maybe one or two commenters here who have **real** autism.
Pill I can tell you are both a schizophrenic and a fucking retard from your comments.
All you ever do is repeat the same things over and over again a sign of autism. You are mentally handicapped in so many ways.
Pill, please diagnose me. I’m curious what you think is wrong with me (and I admit that something’s wrong).
Theres at least 5 long time commenters who have pronounced autism including missing complete functions of the brain and they’ve said it openly.
Which brain functions am I missing pill?
maybe I am just average you know I got 103 on the IQ test.
pill thinks this is autism? what a joke.
The variation of the indices on the IQ test I took means I have a learning disability. I am disabled, not dysfunctional.
what would pill do if he had 75 as a working memory like Animekitty does? yet be linguistically 120.
spatial IQ of 120 and a processing speed of 75.
yet g is 125
learning disability.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/15/mel-gibson-harvey-weinstein-los-angeles-trial
Ahahaha Mel Gibson vs Harvey Weinstein in court.
Good vs evil. Part 2.
mel is an uber-catholic.
you knew that right?
The should cannonise Mel for all his work for the Catholic Church.
https://www.unz.com/jfreud/the-sordid-untold-history-of-race-mixing/
Excellent article on race-mixing.
You should read this article puppy. You are mixed race. Most mixed race people in the world today are the results of rape according to this article.
Arent you a fucking Gypsy? Thats like literally the trashiest and most pathetic race out there! Geez man get a clue!
So you are racist against gypsies.
I would say a K-selected peripatetic ethno-cultural group like Romanichals or Tinkers. And there would be absolutely no shame. Those people are street philosophers. It should never be an insult.
Moon. Vans. Scintillating cutlery. It’s kinda romantic to me btw.
Pill i never said i wasnt racist you fucking moron. nor should it concern you if i were because you are the biggest racist out there.
how many times have i mocked indians on this website and you think i would be offended by you of all people calling me a racist.
youre a fucking Gyp my man give it up your people are lowest on the rung wanted nowhere just like you.
Bruno, if you were a Gypsy, you would be a grandfather by now.
You two are fuckin idiots. Me being a gypsy is literally the worst possible guess you could have made about my background. I hereby rule out that I’m a gypsy. Because you have autism or in Loadeds case, plain stupidity, I predict it will take another 2000 guesses before you identify my background.
how many tries do you think it wouldve taken you to come up with me being South Asian if i hadnt told you? probably 2000 as well.
your comments are so generic its impossible to tell what ethnic group you belong to except that youre probably Caucasoid or a very cucked East Asian.
all you ever do is bash on Jews and promote your white ideologies therefore youre certainly not Jewish. but you could be 2000 different things based on how stupidly disguised your comments are about your ethnicity.
Clearly your guess I am a gypsy is beyond retarded and evidence of low IQ. Just own it Loaded.
No its not clearly youre an Irish traveller (related to Gypsies and descended from Indians long ago) who is lying about his race. Own it!
I think pill is either an Indian or an orthodox Jew.
My first guess is indian
The Philosopher is clearly a hot-headed Balkan, like myself.
“Bruno, if you were a Gypsy, you would be a grandfather by now.”
I am half way through. There is a little Géraud now that gets half my dna …
I wish good luck to Géraud throughout his life and maybe he become vegan soon. We need more high IQ vegans!
Who knows ? I wouldn’t mind.
I love vegetable but I am also a red meat eater. I love it “blue” . Here we eat steak tartare wich is basically uncooked meat. His mother loves elaborate fish cooking so that’s not vegan either …
Vegan are you really a transexual? do you know how degenerate that is?
do you know how disgusting most of the users on this blog probably find you? and yet you comment here? i dont understand.
@Bruno – I urge you to think about (and much better yet, research) the morality of veganism. Consuming animal products means supporting unnecessary violence. Well, that’s the basic idea. Anti-vegans will have you believe you will get sick if you don’t eat meat, fish etc which is BS. Unnatural Vegan on Youtube has great, nuanced videos on all veganism-related concepts.
@LOADED – Are you breaking up with me? And, again, I’m probably genderfluid, not a trans woman.
you sound too feminine to have been born a man Vegan. your act doesnt fool me.
if you are in fact genderfluid youre probably a female who wants to not define herself as such. i doubt you would be a man trying to be genderfluid though.
your writings are too feminine i cannot imagine in my wildest dreams knowing a male or in your case a former male accepting themselves as having that much of a feminine cognitive tilt.
just my observation though i could be wrong. youre free to enlighten me on the subject.
Loady, I have no idea what my writing seems like, but you probably just want to have fun. You can’t really believe I’m lying about having a male anatomy. Or that I identify as a woman. Next, I’ll be the 20th person that gets called autistic in this blog.
i cant really understand you. youre speaking Greek to me.
Rushton would be a bit confused to consider Kanye “genetically inferior” IMO. Because the difference between whites and East Asians is only around 5 IQ points. But there are plenty of Asians in Southeast Asia with sub 100 IQ averages, even with good nutrition, and they have a pretty similar phenotype to the northern Asians. That’s where regression to the mean is kind of weird to me. If someone has a roughly similar phenotype, but slight variations in brain size and other related intelligence genes that create a small but noticeable boost in IQ (such as what seems to be the case going from southern to northern Europe, or southern to northern Asia), are they genetically superior since they would regress to the mean of their region?
If cold winters are a factor, that explains the IQ difference but since the overall body structure doesn’t seem to be too different from north to south, it would be weird to call a smart individual from a southern region genetically inferior. Likewise it seems weird to call a smart person from a below average race genetically inferior.
I mean aren’t Jews basically the same from head down as other Europeans? But they have a 10 IQ point lead.
Seems better to say such individuals are either genetic outliers within their group that could push evolution towards their superior direction (i.e. the first born of a new racial category or at least part of a missing link between races), or perhaps partly superior (brain) and partly inferior (rest of the body with r-selected features).
I don’t think Rushton said that West is “inferior.” That’s just an invention of PP. CWT is false. Jews have an “IQ lead” because of their culture.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2019/11/06/jews-iq-genes-and-culture/
LOL! I never said that he said it. My point is unlike other HBDer who only focus on IQ, Rushton’s theory was especially insidious in that it included 60 different variables so even though one could be way above their racial mean in one trait (say IQ), they would regress to their racial mean in most of the 59 other taits, and thus overall, be, considered, sadly GENETICALLY INFERIOR.
Is the claim an inference from Rushton or a quote from him? Can quote Rushton so I can get an idea of where that claim you attribute to him comes from?
Many things are easier to understand by considering their extremes. Genetic inferiority is one of them. Nobody in their right mind considers Down syndrome anything other than inferior genes.
Down syndrome is due to an interaction between G and E like everything. One’s identity can’t be reduced to genes as one’s (lives) experience is subjective. In any case, if “one can understand” genetic inferiority “by considering their extremes”, what—if anything—should be done with the “genetically inferior”? What would the stance be applied to in the normal range? In virtue of what is the concept of any use to society as a whole? The concept is socially harmful, as can be seen “taken to the extreme”, and does nothing to help anything.
I read Rushton’s book and he never said anyone was “genetically inferior”. Thats total garbage. He just said some races evolve towards R and others towards K.
You know I think blacks are barbaric and hideous and even primitive but I would never argue they never evolved to have very very good genes in certain areas. I would never say blacks are “genetically inferior”.
and even primitive but I would never argue they never evolved to have very very good genes in certain areas.
In certain areas, but what about overall?
I like the fact that you’re making a distinction between being primitive and being genetically inferior because most people conflate these, however if one views evolution as a ladder of progress, then primitive populations will tend to be inferior ones.
Yea PP is the one making value-judgments on what Rushton’s “data” says.
RR, as you know Rushton believed in evolutionary progress, though it wasn’t something he emphasized
In his 2004 paper he sought to restore the concept to its “proper place in evolutionary biology”, and surely he believed that the “K evolved” were more “progressed” than the “r evolved.”
“Down syndrome is due to an interaction between G and E like everything.”
No, Down syndrome is due to having a third copy of chromosome 21
What do you know about maternal nondisjunction, folate metabolism and the gene-nutrition (environment) interaction?
If we’re including those in the definition of “environment”, then we might as well include genes themselves too.
I know PP was making a conjecture about Rushton.
“CWT is false. Jews have an “IQ lead” because of their culture.”
This is your opinion, I know now. But the evidence for Cold Winter Theory or UV radiation exposure levels is so overwhelming as a national IQ correlation that I’m not sure how you think your logical causation quibble somehow makes it a bad argument… Plus Jews have specific neurological diseases, which as I’ve mentioned before, your cultural exposure/environment theory (which separates the brain from the environment) cannot explain. Please think about that, because that’s the crux of the issue.
(The issue is not about where intelligence comes from in a metaphysical sense… we can’t even explain physical causation in a metaphysical sense, we can only draw correlations).
“In virtue of what is the concept of any use to society as a whole? The concept is socially harmful, as can be seen “taken to the extreme”, and does nothing to help anything.”
We could for example, not engage in harmful substance abuse while pregnant, not engage in incest, avoid too much harmful radiation and carcinogen exposure in general, etc.
We could also not assume that we can simply give jobs with a high cognitive load to people from low IQ groups in the hope that exposure to that environment will bridge the gap in their ability. (Because giving a stupid person a lot of power is a recipe for death or an immense waste of resources at the least)
We need not say that those who are genetically inferior need to be put in concentration camps or something.
CWT is a just-so story. Lynn’s “IQ” data should stop being used. It’s over for it.
https://psyarxiv.com/26vfb/
“Jews have specific neurological diseases”
So what? IQ-ists, if seems, seem to forget that all tests take place in cultural contexts, nevermind the questions on them.
Bro you literally didn’t address my argument, you’re repeating yourself. The neurological diseases come from co-evolution with IQ… otherwise they’d be completely detrimental and useless and have no evolutionary reason. You can call that a Just-So story but it is an better explanation than having literally no explanation for these diseases.
“Lynn’s “IQ” data should stop being used. It’s over for it.”
True, thanks to your arguments it’s over for us gamma male race-pilled IQ-ists.
“So what? IQ-ists, if seems, seem to forget that all tests take place in cultural contexts, nevermind the questions on them.”
You forget that brain differences can create (or at least exacerbate) cultural differences. What’s your argument for that? Please don’t ignore my actual arguments.
Yikes… You don’t even realize what’s wrong with your first two sentences… Things don’t need an “evolutionary reason” to exist. I don’t need an explanation to reject Cochran’s just-so storytelling and neuro-reductionism. What evidence is there that those diseases were selected?
The arguments against Lynn’s “national IQ” data by Sear are devestating for his whole “program.”
“If blacks and whites are, to some extent, different cultural groups, then they will—by definition—have differing cultures. So “cultural differences are known to exist, and cultural differences can have an impact on psychological traits [also in the knowledge one acquires which then is one part of dictating test scores] (see Prinz, 2014: 67, Beyond Human Nature). If blacks and whites are “separate cultural groups” (Block, 1995) and if they have different experiences by virtue of being cultural groups, then they will score differently on any test of ability (including IQ; see Fagan and Holland, 2002, 2007) as all tests of ability are culture-bound (see Cole, 2004).”
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2019/10/06/knowledge-culture-logic-and-iq/
If you want RR to address your actual arguments you’ll need to resolutely explain how thoughts, which can’t be reduced to the material, connect with the brain, which is material, and then explain how thoughts could be heritable. It would require the acceptance of a systematic approach to the issue, specifically connecting the chain of causation and what sort of things emerge from a system and what is innate to the physical structure of an organism. Luckily he doesn’t care to ask how physical structures are heritable. But if you fail to provide these sorts of arguments then since thoughts aren’t reducible to the physical, are (consciously chosen) actions, and since the actions an organism performs throughout its existence isn’t encoded within its DNA so CAN’T be genetically transmissible, IQ can’t be genetically heritable. It’s similar to how the (consciously chosen) action of walking isn’t genetically heritable, or how getting your arm amputated isn’t genetically heritable.
Is it worth the effort? Your arguments assume IQ has some sort of existence or can be expressed outside of the cultural condition in which a human is submerged within. Culture isn’t genetic, so whatever IQ measures can’t be wholly reduced to genetics, and since IQ can’t be expressed without some sort of cultural influence or backdrop it also can’t exist outside of a culture. Your presumptions do not match his.
It’s also important to make a distinction between IQ and colloquial intelligence.
If any of this doesn’t adequately reflect RR’s position on this then I’ll preemptively apologize.
“Yikes… You don’t even realize what’s wrong with your first two sentences… Things don’t need an “evolutionary reason” to exist.”
Yes they do. That’s literally how natural selection works.
“I don’t need an explanation to reject Cochran’s just-so storytelling and neuro-reductionism. What evidence is there that those diseases were selected?”
Because Jews have them and other Europeans don’t… and Jews have greater IQ. (among other correlations) It’s well-known that Ashkenazi Jews have historically been in a somewhat different genetic selection pool than other Europeans.
““If blacks and whites are, to some extent, different cultural groups, then they will—by definition—have differing cultures. So “cultural differences are known to exist, and cultural differences can have an impact on psychological traits [also in the knowledge one acquires which then is one part of dictating test scores] (see Prinz, 2014: 67, Beyond Human Nature). If blacks and whites are “separate cultural groups” (Block, 1995) and if they have different experiences by virtue of being cultural groups, then they will score differently on any test of ability (including IQ; see Fagan and Holland, 2002, 2007) as all tests of ability are culture-bound (see Cole, 2004).””
Yet blacks raised in environments of whites have barely any different IQ scores. And the same for every other group raised with any other group, except in the cases where malnutrition is factor obviously.
You still haven’t replied to the fact that brains create culture and are also part of the environment that intelligence develops in.
If environment creates culture, as you seem to be arguing, are brains part of the culture, or environment? Because you haven’t addressed how they impact intelligence if they are part of the environment. And if brains differ because of culture, you’d have to explain why blacks and whites don’t suddenly grow the same types of brains as each other when reared in different environments… and why different races differ in the same ways in genes that are known to influence brain growth.
RR is a very stupid person. People who debate with RR are also stupid people.
Ganzir,
Yea GxG interactions also then create a new environment. Per Denis Noble’s argument for biological relativity, there is no privileged level of causation.
Lurker,
“The neurological diseases come from co-evolution with IQ”
This is an unsubstantiated Cochran claim—what evidence exists for the claim? What evidence exists that the diseases were selected?
“Yes they do. That’s literally how natural selection works.”
Do all traits have a reason they still exist?
“Because Jews have them and other Europeans don’t”
How does it follow that since Jews have the diseases and higher “IQ” that they co-evolved? The diseases were selected and this then influenced IQ? I know that IQ wasn’t selected since it can’t be. So again, what evidence exists that the diseases were selected?
“Yet blacks raised in environments of whites have barely any different IQ scores.”
Do you have a source?
Brains are a biological organ influenced by the culture of a people, as the argument I’ve provided shows. What genes do they differ in that influence brain growth? Source?
Biscuit,
Very well said. I agree with everything that you attribute to me and toy worded it very well. I’ve made those arguments here.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2020/08/16/conceptual-arguments-against-heredetarianism/
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2021/08/10/reductionism-natural-selection-and-hereditarianism/
Hereditarianism is very clearly a kind of mind-brain identity theory. I think you articulated the argument I’ve been pushing for years here really well.
“since thoughts aren’t reducible to the physical, are (consciously chosen) actions, and since the actions an organism performs throughout its existence isn’t encoded within its DNA so CAN’T be genetically transmissible, IQ can’t be genetically heritable.”
LMAO. It’s absolutely hilarious that Biscuit has explained RR’s position better than himself, and I think it highlights where RR goes wrong in a lot of his interactions on this blog.
“But if you fail to provide these sorts of arguments then since thoughts aren’t reducible to the physical, are (consciously chosen) actions, and since the actions an organism performs throughout its existence isn’t encoded within its DNA so CAN’T be genetically transmissible, IQ can’t be genetically heritable. It’s similar to how the (consciously chosen) action of walking isn’t genetically heritable, or how getting your arm amputated isn’t genetically heritable.”
So, the thing is, walking obviously isn’t heritable, but the ability to walk is. If a particular phenotype makes walking easier and, as a result, allows me to reproduce more quickly, someone without said phenotype won’t pass down their genes.
Humans create a culture that also serves as an environment they live in. This makes them niche constructors. And since the environment is the active cause behind Natural Selection, culture can act upon our genetics. This creates a feedback loop between all of these variables that can be difficult to tease apart with a hereditarian/environmentalist paradigm.
Biscuit did explain the argument very well and I articulated it like this:
“Further note that the claim “IQ is heritable” reduces to “thinking is heritable”, since the main aspect of test-taking is thinking. Thinking is a mental activity which results in a thought. If thinking is a mental activity which results in a thought, then what is a thought? A thought is a mental state of considering a particular idea or answer to a question or committing oneself to an idea or an answer. These mental states are, or are related to, beliefs. When one considers a particular answer to a question, they are paving the way to holding a certain belief. So when they have committed themselves to an answer, they have committed themselves to a new belief. Since beliefs are propositional attitudes, believing p means adopting the belief attitude that p. So, since cognition is thinking, then thinking is a mental process that results in the formation of a propositional belief. Thus, since thinking is related to beliefs and desires (without beliefs and desires we would not be able to think), then thinking (cognition) is irreducible to physical/functional states, meaning that the main aspect of test-taking (thinking) is irreducible to the physical thus physical states don’t explain thinking which means the main aspect of (IQ) test-taking is irreducible to the physical.”
(1) There is no theory of natural selection because there is no mechanism of natural selection; (2) there is no mechanism of natural selection because there are no laws of adaptation; so (3) the claim that “the environment is the active cause behind Natural Selection” fails since it can’t ground the counterfactuals that distinguish between selection-of from selection-for.
“the claim that “the environment is the active cause behind Natural Selection” fails since it can’t ground the counterfactuals that distinguish between selection-of from selection-for.”
You’re confused about my statement; I’m just describing natural selection. I’m not suggesting that the environment can distinguish between coextensive traits.
Fodor knows that Natural Selection occurs and he knows that there is a fact of the matter on which traits are selected for. Fodor simply disagrees that Natural selection can elucidate the latter.
Selection-of is all that’s required for my statement to be true.
When I hear “natural selection” I think of the term in the common parlance—the adaptationist one. When you say “natural selection” what is being “naturally selected”? Even the language of “selection” implies either a mind or laws, in my view. At the end of the day NS is conceptualized as a mechanism by many authors, including Darwin himself.
I don’t disagree with those claims from Fodor, but again as you know, NS is used to “explain” trait fixation for trait T and that’s why I’m so against it because it logically cannot explain fixation for trait T. When you say that “Fodor knows that Natural Selection occurs”, do you have a particular quote in mind? Would you say that this suffices? “We think of natural selection as tuning the piano, not as composing the melodies.” (pg 35)
Regarding facts of the matter, yea I know. See this quote from Replies to Our Critics:
“Our claim is that, given coextensive phenotypic traits, TNS can’t distinguish ones that are causally active from ones that aren’t. Many of the objections that have been raised against us seem unable to discriminate this claim from such quite different ones that we didn’t and don’t endorse, such as: when traits are coextensive, there is no fact of the matter about which is a cause of fitness; or, when traits are coextensive, there is no way to tell which of them is a cause of fitness; or when traits are coextensive Science cannot determine which is a cause of fitness etc. Such views are, we think, preposterous on the face of them; we wouldn’t be caught dead holding them. To the contrary, it is precisely because there is a fact of the matter about which phenotypic traits cause fitness, and because there is no principled reason why such facts should be inaccessible to empirical inquiry, that the failure of TNS to explain what distinguishes causally active traits from mere correlates of causally of active traits, shows that something is seriously wrong with TNS.”
It’s like what Hornstein says in his outline of the argument—that NS can be combined with structural theories with NS not being causally efficacious but the structural theories bring causally efficacious but that wouldn’t be NS causing/explaining anything, the latter would be doing the explaining.
At the end of the day, the argument is against NS as a mechanism and as Darwin formulated it since he, per Samir Okasha, employed what he calls “type 2 agential thinking”—with “Mother Nature” being the agent, though Fodor shows how that claim fails and so the only thing that saves the theory as formulated and as is currently defended is laws of selection that can distinguish between causes and correlates of causes.
biscuit, I appreciate the effort:
“If you want RR to address your actual arguments you’ll need to resolutely explain how thoughts, which can’t be reduced to the material, connect with the brain, which is material, and then explain how thoughts could be heritable. ”
Specific thoughts aren’t necessarily heritable. What is heritable, is the ability to manipulate thoughts, and perhaps the propensity for certain thoughts.
“Culture isn’t genetic, so whatever IQ measures can’t be wholly reduced to genetics, and since IQ can’t be expressed without some sort of cultural influence or backdrop it also can’t exist outside of a culture. Your presumptions do not match his.”
The problem is that his presumptions do not match reality, whereas mine do (more). I think his presumptions can be shown to be contradictory (if not to him, to an outside observer) or else I wouldn’t bother replying.
Of course we are always imbibed in culture. The point is that some brains seem to have higher intelligence, regardless of the culture and the bias of the test. It stands to reason that if our brains are manipulating information, which is clearly what they’re doing, than if it seems that some brains are better able to manipulate that information (such as faster, bigger brains), they’d get higher IQ scores.
Melo said it well: “So, the thing is, walking obviously isn’t heritable, but the ability to walk is. If a particular phenotype makes walking easier and, as a result, allows me to reproduce more quickly, someone without said phenotype won’t pass down their genes.”
“Is it worth the effort?”
Not really. You and melo already explained everything pretty well.
RR,
I’m not going to give a citation for everything, my broad point is that if you see one ethnicity whose average brain size is 1400 CC, and whose IQs are above 100, and another ethnicity whose average brain size is 1200 CC, and has IQs in the 80s… given that thought is clearly connected to the brain, the obvious conclusion is that the brain size difference is correlated with an intelligence difference.
If you can’t explain something simply like the increasing brain size of homo sapiens through evolution, and you can’t explain how the brain effects intelligence and culture given that it is also part of the environment and differs from species to species and human to human, than your theory has holes.
There are probably a lot of flawed assumptions in certain theories about why certain groups evolved certain traits, and I didn’t exist in history to document Ashkenazi brain growth vs. propensities to neurological diseases, but any time you see a massive survival disadvantage that seemingly comes packaged with a benefit somewhere else, in the exact same organ system, and started showing up in the population at the exact same time, why would you believe they were disconnected? It’s simply the same cause-and-effect conclusion we make about anything else.
“This creates a feedback loop between all of these variables that can be difficult to tease apart with a hereditarian/environmentalist paradigm.”
Exactly, and to make matters worse, all races in the US for example vary between 85-110 average IQ, which is a big difference but apparently not above the supposed 2 SD gap that makes communication very difficult. So it’s hard to sus out IQ differences even in every day life sometimes.
“Thus, since thinking is related to beliefs and desires (without beliefs and desires we would not be able to think), then thinking (cognition) is irreducible to physical/functional states, meaning that the main aspect of test-taking (thinking) is irreducible to the physical thus physical states don’t explain thinking which means the main aspect of (IQ) test-taking is irreducible to the physical.””
I didn’t say physical states explain thinking, but physical states are the end result of thought and what thought has to go through to connect to the rest of physical realiy. So even if thought exists in a metaphysical platonic realm, it still must go through a physical brain, which differ from individual to individual on a genetic basis.
As for your point about Natural Selection, I’m not really sure what you’re talking about but I assume most of my arguments apply in some form. I’ll look at it later maybe.
“When you say “natural selection” what is being “naturally selected”?”
Well, technically, Organisms are the object of selection, but trait variation is what arises from this filtration effect.
“Even the language of “selection” implies either a mind or laws, in my view. At the end of the day NS is conceptualized as a mechanism by many authors, including Darwin himself.”
Well, yes, but it’s just a metaphor.
Natural Selection is considered a mechanism for trait variation by its progenitors and adherents. However, in this instance, I’m referring to the environment as a mechanism (cause) of Natural Selection.
“When you say that “Fodor knows that Natural Selection occurs”, do you have a particular quote in mind? ”
So, I haven’t watched all of his interviews or read all of his works, but to me, it just seems evident from the argument he’s making. Natural selection is just a process that occurs when animals struggle to survive and reproduce in their ever-changing environments. I don’t think he denies that this process occurs, just that this process cannot explain trait variation without outside help.
Furthermore, for there to be a fact of the matter on which traits are fitness-causing, then there necessarily must be some sort of selection occurring.
“trait variation is what arises from this filtration effect”
We agree that the organism is being selected. But would you agree that we disagree as to what this means in terms of traits and reproductive fitness?
“just a metaphor”
And metaphors aren’t to be taken as scientific theories but of course in this case it is just like the “selfish gene.” I still think that “the environment” needs to be able to distinguish between T and T’, irregardless if we both agree that organisms are ultimately what are selected. Of course Fodor isn’t saying that the environment doesn’t filter maladaptive traits, but he is saying that there is no generalized mechbausm of filtration, which is of course taken to be natural selection.
How does it follow that since there is a fact of the matter about what phenotypic traits may cause fitness that there is “some sort” of selection occurring? I think we can reach the point of our disagreement with this discussion. And if it cannot explain without outside help, then it’s like saying if you take theory X and theory Y where X came before Y, that if you add Y to X, then X is doing the explaining while Y is doing the “heavy lifting.”
“What is heritable, is the ability to manipulate thoughts, and perhaps the propensity for certain thoughts.”
How is that heritable? You said thoughts aren’t necessarily heritable, are they sufficiently heritable? The propensity for certain thoughts is perhaps heritable but thoughts aren’t necessarily heritable? Can you give an example of a “propensity for certain thoughts” and explain?
You agree that tests are culture-bound, and so necessarily the items on them are, but still hold that your ideas? Which of my views are contradictory, can you give examples?
Item content clearly effects score outcomes for groups (eg Rosser 1989 and Kidder and Rosner 2002) so for you to be so confident is laughable. Cole’s West African Binet argument shows that its impossible to divorce IQ from culture.
Your problem is taking correlations and then crafting evolutionary stories for what toy see with no way to test them—that was Rushton’s problem and that is also yours as well. Good thing that Rushton’s data—and subsequent interpretations of it—has been refuted for the last 40 years.
And biscuit was talking about the conscious action of walking not being heritable, of course if an organism can’t walk or has never walked before they can’t physically walk, even though they may attempt to walk by their will though they are no physically capable of it.
So I need the evidence for Cochran’s conjectures or I won’t be able to entertain what you’re saying about brain structure and diseases. It’s been 16 years since that paper has been published so where is the evidence?
“but apparently not above the supposed 2 SD gap that makes communication very difficult.”
Where did you get this laughable idea from? Hollingsworth? She was misrepresented. So Neuroskeptic on the matter. Chris Langan made the same error.
Lastly, yea the brain is a necessary pre-condition for human mindedness but that doesn’t mean anything at all to my arguments. There need to be physical facts for there to be mental facts. Mental facts are irreducible.
And Melo you should check out the Blogging Heads discussion between Fodor and Sober.
RR,
“How is that heritable? You said thoughts aren’t necessarily heritable, are they sufficiently heritable? The propensity for certain thoughts is perhaps heritable but thoughts aren’t necessarily heritable? Can you give an example of a “propensity for certain thoughts” and explain?”
Because clearly, you need certain brain structures to have thoughts in the first place (at least in a way communicable to the physical realm). How are you not able to see that some thoughts are more likely to happen in certain people/animals than they would be in others? If I’m born in a sexual species, I’m more likely to have sexually charged thoughts, or more likely to have thoughts about how to pursue sexual partners, because those would be naturally reinforced by chemicals and numerous other reasons.
Probably this could be explained better, but it isn’t necessary for my argument (which is that IQ has a genetic component).
“You agree that tests are culture-bound, and so necessarily the items on them are, but still hold that your ideas?”
Lol.
“Which of my views are contradictory, can you give examples?”
See below. See literally every other post I made to you.
“Item content clearly effects score outcomes for groups (eg Rosser 1989 and Kidder and Rosner 2002) so for you to be so confident is laughable. Cole’s West African Binet argument shows that its impossible to divorce IQ from culture.”
Yes, which is why we need to only have ethnostates with monocultures, according to your views.
“Your problem is taking correlations and then crafting evolutionary stories for what toy see with no way to test them—that was Rushton’s problem and that is also yours as well. Good thing that Rushton’s data—and subsequent interpretations of it—has been refuted for the last 40 years.”
I’m crafting evolutionary stories for them because there is literally no other reason for having gigantic brains which simply suck resources and make us vulnerable. Your arguments reek of someone who has never done any sort of manual labor in your life and have no concept of physical limitations and think literally all physical differences can be overcome through sheer thought.
“Where did you get this laughable idea from? Hollingsworth? She was misrepresented. So Neuroskeptic on the matter. Chris Langan made the same error.”
Does it matter? It’s simply a point that unless someone is really weird or severely retarded you may not be able to tell if they are one or two SDs in IQ lower than you, since most conversations don’t necessarily get abstract or require deep analysis.
“Lastly, yea the brain is a necessary pre-condition for human mindedness but that doesn’t mean anything at all to my arguments. There need to be physical facts for there to be mental facts. Mental facts are irreducible.”
Actually it means a lot to your arguments. Because, as I’ve said numerous times, whatever is going in your mind has to be measured physically. It has to go through a physical brain. Different people have different brains, and brains make up part of the environment. And your argument, which hinges on environment causing all IQ differences completely ignores the most direct environmental connection to the mental: the brain.
“you need brain structures to have thoughts in the first place”
Did you not see me talk about “necessary pre-conditions”? Sexual species think about sex while non-sexual species don’t? Wild!
I want you to say something like this, since you said I hold contradictory views.
“You said X. But then you said Y which contradicts X.”
“ethnostates”
This is ridiculous and I didn’t imagine you to be this kind of person (a racist).
“Your arguments reel of someone who has never done any sort of manual labor in your life”
Hahaha this is hilarious. If only you knew what I’ve done over the past 10+ years. I’ve been doing physical labor for a long time.
“Does it matter?”
Yes, it does. Because it doesn’t mean that “IQ” is causing this “communication gap.” Hollingsworth was taken waaaaay out of context.
“whatever is going in your mind has to be measured physically.”
What’s the argument that mind-brain identity is true? Again, hereditarianism reduces to mind-brain identity and so you need a sound argument to safely make that claim. In my argument, the brain is necessary for mental life but not sufficient for it. Necessarily, due to the item content on the test, environment causes IQ score differences between groups and it’s due to the item content on the tests.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2020/04/22/race-gender-and-the-sat/
“Did you not see me talk about “necessary pre-conditions”? Sexual species think about sex while non-sexual species don’t? Wild!”
So you admit that thoughts are affected by genetics, and so the type of thought is inherited, which means certain thoughts will be more likely given certain genetics.
“You said X. But then you said Y which contradicts X.”
Jesus! Do some work yourself. I’ve tried numerous times to steelman you. It’s a pain to read through your citations and blogs, even just skimming them, when I also have to repeat myself ad nauseum. I’m trying pretty hard to not talk past you. Anyway:
You said intelligence cannot be measured. Intelligence is the ability to aquire and apply knowledge. But then you stated that acquired cultural knowledge is measured by IQ tests. If any specific type of knowledge is measured in an IQ test, even culturally biased knowledge, it is still a subset of all of one’s acquired knowledge. Therefore, someone with more acquired total knowledge will perform better on any random culturally biased test, meaning that we can measure a person’s intelligence with even a culturally biased IQ test. Yet this contradicts your statement that intelligence is not measurable.
“This is ridiculous and I didn’t imagine you to be this kind of person (a racist).”
I was sarcastically taking on your views to show how ridiculous they were.
“Hahaha this is hilarious. If only you knew what I’ve done over the past 10+ years. I’ve been doing physical labor for a long time.”
Right, but it doesn’t seem to have seeped into your metaphysics.
“Yes, it does. Because it doesn’t mean that “IQ” is causing this “communication gap.” Hollingsworth was taken waaaaay out of context.”
Right…
“What’s the argument that mind-brain identity is true?”
It doesn’t have to be the brain. The mind could be anywhere. The point is that in order to make something happen in the physical world, the mind has to manifest physically.
All empirical data indicates that the mind and brain are pretty connected, regardless.
“So you admit that thoughts are affected by genetics”
No, I “admit” that the brain is necessary for our minds. That’s it. Genes, thus, are necessary since without genes we wouldn’t have a brain or body, but I don’t reduce humans to genes, it’d be like reducing humans to other developmental resources but strong causal parity is true and so they all interact.
If X is psychological, then X can’t be measured as X doesn’t deuce to P since X is M.
“someone with more acquired total knowledge will perform better on any random culturally biased test”
Yea, that’s the point that they test certain skills/knowledge found in certain groups. And the recent history of the SAT with men and women and races shows that question selection matters greatly. Have you read Rosser or Kidder and Rosner yet on test construction?
“The most reasonable answer to the question “What is being measured?”, then, is ‘degree of cultural affiliation’: to the culture of test constructors, school teachers and school curricula.” (Richardson, 1998:127)
I am merely against the claim that psychological traits can be measured by questionnaires; IQ tests are mere knowledge tests.
I don’t claim that mind and brain aren’t connected, as my claim that the brain is necessary for mental life and the fact that for mental facts to exist there need to be physical facts show.
RR, you think brains are simply necessary for minds, but they don’t have any further influence on our intelligence? Why in the world would they evolve in animals in the first place? You realize how your argument is figuratively and literally braindead?
Minds have an Input and an Output. You agree with this when you say we get cultural knowledge from the environment and then output in a test. Yet according to you… Intelligence is psychological, so it doesn’t reduce to the physical.
Newsflash: reducing abstract thought to the physical is what happens anytime you make a decision or imagine something and make it happen in real life. Do you not understand that basic fact?
IQ tests are knowledge tests. Intelligence is the ability to acquire and apply knowledge. Hence IQ tests test intelligence. Hence one can measure intelligence. IQ is genetically inherited. Hence intelligence differs and is inherited. So why not admit you’re wrong?
…
Guess what? There is no such thing as intelligence outside of a specific cultural context. Intelligence deals with information and information does not exist without a medium, and the medium determines the of the context of the information.
All humans share the same physical universe and physical laws, and the same planet, and many more things. Some humans just have brains and bodies better adapted to the university human cultural context. Deal with it.
As for Rossner and kid, I might read that after you demonstrate abstract thought.
Psychological traits are irreducible so if something is posited to be a psychological trait it is irreducible and therefore immeasurable.
I said previously that mental facts are irreducible to physical facts and that for there to be mental facts they need to be physical facts.
Re your argument: The items on IQ tests reflect specific knowledge used in specific contexts. I’ll ask you again—what kinds of items do you have in mind that would lend credence to your claims? I’ve referenced 2 papers on the items on the SAT and you’ve not said anything about them. I’ve referenced many other papers, concluding that such differences arise due to a priori biases. My argument about the main aspect of IQ test-taking being thinking with thinking being irreducible matters and proves my point. If you agree that there is no such thing as “intelligence” outside of cultural context, then you should drop your belief about “IQ tests measuring intelligence” (how can something nonphysical be measured?) What does it mean to you that there is no fixed point of reference for “IQ”? What about the fact that there is no measurement unit like pounds for IQ, nor specified measured object and object of measurement?
Your claims of genetically determined IQ fail, IQ isn’t a thing, and just because someone claims that some”thing” is being measured without specifying and arguing for what is being measured, then one should not accept their claims.
As for Rosser and Kidder and Rosner, you should read them so you can see some actual examples of test items, which you’ve for some reason strangely have yet to provide me.
“But would you agree that we disagree as to what this means in terms of traits and reproductive fitness?”
I mean, maybe. What do you believe we disagree about?
“Of course Fodor isn’t saying that the environment doesn’t filter maladaptive traits, but he is saying that there is no generalized mechbausm of filtration, which is of course taken to be natural selection.
Well, wait a minute, that’s a contradiction. Filtration (of organisms) through environment == Natural Selection. So, Fodor knows that the environment is the cause of Natural Selection, but he doesn’t believe the Theory of Natural Selection can explain evolution (trait variation over time) because the environment cannot differentiate between coextensive traits.
“How does it follow that since there is a fact of the matter about what phenotypic traits may cause fitness that there is “some sort” of selection occurring?”
It’s just kind of true by definition. If there is a trait causing fitness, then that means there is an organism with fitness because of said trait. Fitness is just surviving to reproduce in an environment which is what selection is.
I believe we disagree about the filtering mechanism.
“wait a minute”
Whether T is maladaptive or not is massively context-sensitive. I’d say that your claim is just like the sieve argument that they dispatch in their book. Adaptationist explanations cannot reconstruct the distinction between select and select-for. Sorting for is intensional. How can the theory predict the outcome of counterfactual trait competitions?
If there is something selects, then there is a selector. The fact that certain creatures die doesn’t, to me, license the claim that they were selected against by the environment (your filter). When I said what I said about Fodor’s view about maladaptive traits, that doesn’t license the claim that your filter can distinguish between causes and correlates as the filter has access to the mere correlates. And natural selection is supposed to be the mechanism, which is stressed by many, and it’s the mechanism in virtue of environmental filters that explains trait fixation.
If a creature isn’t dead then it’s fit for its environment, is that right?
After you watch the Blogging Heads interview, you should watch Piattelli-Palmarini’s talk about Fodor after his death. He says “Natural selection is real but marginal in biological evolution.” We both agree that organisms are selected, but you has a further caveat:
“Organisms are the object of selection, but trait variation is what arises from this filtration effect.”
Said another way, creatures are selected (true) BUT you further add that they are selected in virtue of the trait’s they have, which F&PP summarily argue against. If I am wrong on that point please correct me.
You should check out the talk Piattelli-Palmarini had after Fodor’s death in 2019 as well, it really adds to their argument against NS.
I would disagree that it’s “real” since in my view “selection” denotes choice, and since there is no choice, there is no selection. At best, as we agree and as F&PP state, organisms are selected but the fact that they are doesn’t mean that the traits an organism has are selected-for.
Organisms with adaptive traits are selected which then leads to organisms are selected for their adaptive traits, but this is false. This Piattelli-Palmarini quote shows the error:
“The theory of natural selection claims that a trait’s having been selected for causing reproductive success explains why a creature has it. But then it can’t also claim that “in the sense that matters” “a trait was selected for” means that it is a cause of reproductive success. For, if it did mean that, then the theory of natural selection would reduce to a trait’s being a cause of reproductive success explains its being a cause of reproductive success which explains nothing (and isn’t true).”
https://www.scienceonthenet.eu/content/article/massimo-piattelli-palmarini/what-darwin-got-wrong-summary-replies-our-critics/march
Also RR, I think if you want Lurker to better understand your position you need to explain to him in more simple terms what you mean by “irreducible.”
“Psychological traits are irreducible so if something is posited to be a psychological trait it is irreducible and therefore immeasurable.”
It is not immeasurable when we are measuring how well it applies to reality.
“Re your argument: The items on IQ tests reflect specific knowledge used in specific contexts. I’ll ask you again—what kinds of items do you have in mind that would lend credence to your claims?”
Every test is a subset of all knowledge. I don’t need to list specific unbiased test items as that would imply that there exists any knowledge outside of a specific cultural context.
We are testing a sample of their knowledge, with test items that are assumed to be unbiased towards specific human groups. But regardless, there is no such thing as an unbiased sample as every sample is by definition a subset and therefore is biased by being more specific than the set of all possible knowledge.
“I’ve referenced 2 papers on the items on the SAT and you’ve not said anything about them. I’ve referenced many other papers, concluding that such differences arise due to a priori biases.”
Because it is irrelevant to our current discussion.
“My argument about the main aspect of IQ test-taking being thinking with thinking being irreducible matters and proves my point. If you agree that there is no such thing as “intelligence” outside of cultural context, then you should drop your belief about “IQ tests measuring intelligence” (how can something nonphysical be measured?) ”
There is no such thing as knowledge outside of a cultural context. There is no such thing as a specific thought that doesn’t exist within a specific context, and that context could itself be argued to be cultural.
IQ measures intelligence insofar as intelligence applies to knowledge acquisition and application in physical reality.
“What does it mean to you that there is no fixed point of reference for “IQ”? What about the fact that there is no measurement unit like pounds for IQ, nor specified measured object and object of measurement?””
We measure IQ against other people. What does it mean to you that the plank length has no external length to compare to besides the physical things that exist in the universe? Everything has to measured in comparison to other things at some point.
“Your claims of genetically determined IQ fail, IQ isn’t a thing, and just because someone claims that some”thing” is being measured without specifying and arguing for what is being measured, then one should not accept their claims.”
Who didn’t specify what they were measuring? PP says it is the ability to solve novel problems. I looked in the dictionary that said it is the ability to acquire and apply knowledge. All of these obviously apply to physical reality, since that is all we can measure.
“As for Rosser and Kidder and Rosner, you should read them so you can see some actual examples of test items, which you’ve for some reason strangely have yet to provide me.”
Strange reason = Any test item can be argued to be cultural because humans, let alone knowledge, let alone mental thought, cannot be separated from its context. Therefore providing you one is useless and would be dismissed as biased since that is how your unfalsifiable, apriori just-so story about intelligence works.
Melo,
“Also RR, I think if you want Lurker to better understand your position you need to explain to him in more simple terms what you mean by “irreducible.””
He doesn’t know what intelligence is. It’s a blackhole for him. He thinks intelligence is magical and dualistically separated from the physical world.
You agree that the items are biased due to what one is exposed to and you still hold your (false) belief? You talked earlier about specific items that smarter people would know, right? Well where are the items? The fact of the matter is, just by a logical analysis of test item content we can see that the tests are biased due to the content on them since it’s class-specific. Yea, assumed to be unbiased but all testing takes place in a cultural context.
The 2 references aren’t irrelevant to the current discussion, because they show how item content affects score outcomes. If one makes a test where blacks score higher than other groups, what does that mean? What would relegate one as more intelligent on the basis of the items on the test? How do you know that X is an intelligence test?
You keep saying “IQ measures”, yet you haven’t clearly articulated the specified measured object, the object of measurement and the measurement unit for IQ. You said THE SPECIFIED MEASURED OBJECT is whether they can solve problems. Take a stick. The stick is the MEASURED OBJECT, length is the OBJECT OF MEASUREMENT (the property being measured) and inches, centimeters, feet etc. are the MEASUREMENT UNITS. Plug in IQ here—what’s the answer? You’re saying that since we can use a test or questionnaire and obtain numerical values that there is something being measured but that claim is laughable.
The test was designed first (the so-called measurement instrument) and then the “meaning” (what it measures) of the test is determined after the fact, by inspecting correlations between similar tests. Of course certain cognitive processes are necessary to be able to solve IQ test problems and the academic knowledge on them, but this is observed with the relation between IQ and achievement tests. They are different versions of the same test which is why they correlate. Looking at the history of the thermometer, we can see that it was constructed independently of the measurement device but of course the same isn’t true for IQ as they are validated by similar tests with similar item content making the process circular.
“ability to solve novel problems”
So how do IQ tests “measure” that if one necessarily needs to be exposed to the items to be able to answer them? Again, question exams would be apt here. “I looked in the dictionary that said” lmao
I asked for items since you made specific claims about them. Test items are chosen due to the fact that they get a certain distribution. I’ve provided numerous references for my claims and many examples of items, yet you cling to same narrative in your head without giving examples of what you’re talking about. That’s very strange.
When I say that X is irreducible, I mean that X isn’t able to be explained by looking at the parts. I mean that it isn’t explained by physical processes. It isn’t explained by the parts that make up the whole.
I asked you earlier: Do brains think or do humans think?
“When I said what I said about Fodor’s view about maladaptive traits, that doesn’t license the claim that your filter can distinguish between causes and correlates as the filter has access to the mere correlates.”
But again, I’m not saying that the environment has access to more than just correlation. Selection is just when some organisms fail to adapt to a domain and, therefore, cannot reproduce and pass on their genes to the next generation.
So, when I said the environment is a cause of Natural Selection and this will affect genes down the road, I don’t believe this contradicts anything Fodor says.
Can you point to me where you think I’m saying this?
“Said another way, creatures are selected (true) BUT you further add that they are selected in virtue of the trait’s they have, which F&PP summarily argue against. ”
I don’t see how Fodor can be arguing against that if he knows that there is a fact of the matter about which traits are fitness-causing. I think Fodor is arguing against the THEORY’S ability to explain, not the selection process itself. Hence, why Fodor tried suggesting endogenous mechanisms for evolution; he doesn’t believe that Natural Selection doesn’t occur, but instead that it is explanatorily impotent without the help of auxiliary theories.
“This Piattelli-Palmarini quote shows the error:”
So, I’m not trying to suggest that Natural Selection is a definitional truth. I’m just saying that if Fodor knows there are fitness-causing traits, then it seems weird for him to be arguing that traits can’t cause fitness.
I get what you’re saying about passing on genes to the next generation but I think the caveat, and correct me if I’m wrong, would be that the developmental system, not the genes, are passed on no?
Regarding the theory’s ability to explain, that’s true. I would say, and I’m wondering if you agree, that Sobor’s sieve is basically the environmental filter. I do agree that it is as you say explanatorily impotent without the help of other things, but then NS wouldn’t be doing the explaining would it? It’s like I said earlier about theory X coming first and then theory Y comes, with Y added to X and then saying that X could have explained it to. NS lacks explanatory power since, I believe you did also state, the same story could be used to argue for fixation of 2 traits that are correlated. The same narrative can equally explain both traits, so we have no way of knowing, using TNS, what was selected-for.
I think, and correct me if you think I’m wrong, that Fodor is saying that there is a fact of the matter of what is selected-for because we humans can experimentally manipulate things and then can ascertain what was doing what. I would also say that the “selection process itself” still would fall prey to the arguments they made since there still would be no way to distinguish.
I do think that most Darwinists believe this: Organisms have T and organisms were selected so organisms were selected for having T.
Re Fodor, traits and fitness: I’m sure you know that they argued that which traits win a competition in a given environment is massively context-sensitive and that they argued against NS being the GENERAL Theory that spoke to why organisms have the traits they have. We can construct individual historical narratives, but I think that’s different than the project Darwinists hope for.
“Can you point to me where you think I’m saying this?”
Saying what, that the environment has access to more than the correlation? I don’t believe that you’re outright stating that. They state outright that who wins a t1 and t2 competition is massively context-sensitive whether a trait is conducive to the fitness of a thing, so what they are arguing against is the claim that selection theory is the GENERAL mechanism. That’s my reading, anyway, and that’s what I meant about his comments about maladaptive traits.
Of course if NS literally was the differential survival and reproduction of organisms, then there would be no issue. Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini dispute the claim that there can be a general and causally mechanistic explanation of the survival and reproduction of different organisms.
Here’s the video I told you about earlier.
At the end of the day my main claim here is that selection is unexplantory. It can only describe in retrospect, it lacks explanatory power, which is evidenced by the fact that the same story can explain why traits came to be fixated. Natural selection attempts to explain the diversity of traits that we see in the organisms in the world. It doesn’t explain “how”, it explains what it “does.” It lacks explanatory power.
RR, I’ve replied to you below but accidentally sent the reply to myself instead of you because of how long the thread has gotten.
“You agree that the items are biased due to what one is exposed to and you still hold your (false) belief? You talked earlier about specific items that smarter people would know, right? Well where are the items? The fact of the matter is, just by a logical analysis of test item content we can see that the tests are biased due to the content on them since it’s class-specific.”
Smart people are more likely to get ANY test item correct, on average. Not necessarily a specific one (though that may also be the case which is the point of the Mega Test I guess).
“Yea, assumed to be unbiased but all testing takes place in a cultural context.”
Please add an H to the end of yeah, because that is how it is spelled.
“all testing takes place in a cultural context.”
Nope, not JUST testing. ALL information (which means anything that can actually exist in a perceivable state) takes place in a “cultural” context, because everything needs a specific medium to occur in. (One’s national culture or ethnic culture is simply one type of context they understand the world through, but the concept technically extends to all information)
“The 2 references aren’t irrelevant to the current discussion, because they show how item content affects score outcomes. If one makes a test where blacks score higher than other groups, what does that mean? What would relegate one as more intelligent on the basis of the items on the test? How do you know that X is an intelligence test?”
Any test is an intelligent test, given a sufficient number of items. They are also all biased because it is impossible to measure knowledge of something without it being contextualized in some subjective view of reality.
If I ask questions about fried chicken and grits, Blacks will get more correct answers. If I ask questions about Taylor Swift and John Mayer lyrics, whites will get more correct answers. If I ask questions about both in equal amounts, the person who gets the most correct answers will on average be the smarter person. That’s how IQ tests work, of course.
“You keep saying “IQ measures”, yet you haven’t clearly articulated the specified measured object, the object of measurement and the measurement unit for IQ. You said THE SPECIFIED MEASURED OBJECT is whether they can solve problems. Take a stick. The stick is the MEASURED OBJECT, length is the OBJECT OF MEASUREMENT (the property being measured) and inches, centimeters, feet etc. are the MEASUREMENT UNITS. Plug in IQ here—what’s the answer? You’re saying that since we can use a test or questionnaire and obtain numerical values that there is something being measured but that claim is laughable.”
You don’t understand what length is. It’s defined in respect to other things, such as the speed of light. What is the speed of light defined in respect to? The fact that every observer perceives it at the same speed. But that means they will measured different lengths for the same object depending on the speed they are moving relative to it. Which means… everything is measured relative to everything else. But yet we still believe in their validity because we have universal shared context… not because there is noncontextual measurement unit of length.
“The test was designed first (the so-called measurement instrument) and then the “meaning” (what it measures) of the test is determined after the fact, by inspecting correlations between similar tests. Of course certain cognitive processes are necessary to be able to solve IQ test problems and the academic knowledge on them, but this is observed with the relation between IQ and achievement tests. They are different versions of the same test which is why they correlate. Looking at the history of the thermometer, we can see that it was constructed independently of the measurement device but of course the same isn’t true for IQ as they are validated by similar tests with similar item content making the process circular.”
I’ve already explained. Any measurement of knowledge is a subsets of all possible knowledge. By extrapolating we can get a very reliable measure of someone’s nonculturally specific knowledge/intelligence.
“I looked in the dictionary that said” lmao”
I wanted to let you know how easy it was to show that IQ denialists are wrong.
“So how do IQ tests “measure” that if one necessarily needs to be exposed to the items to be able to answer them?”
You are not exposed to the solution, but you are given the tools needed to get to the solution. Because for IQ tests all that is needed is the ability to model various aspects of reality in one’s mind.
“I asked for items since you made specific claims about them. Test items are chosen due to the fact that they get a certain distribution. I’ve provided numerous references for my claims and many examples of items, yet you cling to same narrative in your head without giving examples of what you’re talking about. That’s very strange.”
No specific item can be shown to be completely culturally unbiased since we can’t exhaustively define all knowledge included in a culture in the first place. We can only try our best, but such is how we make all decisions.
“When I say that X is irreducible, I mean that X isn’t able to be explained by looking at the parts. I mean that it isn’t explained by physical processes. It isn’t explained by the parts that make up the whole.”
You realize… physical processes aren’t explained by physical processes? Nothing about a baseball bat hitting a ball explains how the ball flies in the other direction, that is simply our apriori perception of causality.
Your metaphysical assumptions are simply inconsistent.
“I asked you earlier: Do brains think or do humans think?”
They both think. Humans think, using brains. Perhaps all matter is conscious but only has specific human type of consciousness when organized in a certain way, as a brain is. I don’t see how this is relevant to IQ in this discussion.
“You agree that the items are biased due to what one is exposed to and you still hold your (false) belief? You talked earlier about specific items that smarter people would know, right? Well where are the items? The fact of the matter is, just by a logical analysis of test item content we can see that the tests are biased due to the content on them since it’s class-specific.”
Smart people are more likely to get ANY test item correct, on average. Not necessarily a specific one (though that may also be the case which is the point of the Mega Test I guess).
“Yea, assumed to be unbiased but all testing takes place in a cultural context.”
Please add an H to the end of yeah, because that is how it is spelled.
“all testing takes place in a cultural context.”
Nope, not JUST testing. ALL information (which means anything that can actually exist in a perceivable state) takes place in a “cultural” context, because everything needs a specific medium to occur in. (One’s national culture or ethnic culture is simply one type of context they understand the world through, but the concept technically extends to all information)
“The 2 references aren’t irrelevant to the current discussion, because they show how item content affects score outcomes. If one makes a test where blacks score higher than other groups, what does that mean? What would relegate one as more intelligent on the basis of the items on the test? How do you know that X is an intelligence test?”
Any test is an intelligent test, given a sufficient number of items. They are also all biased because it is impossible to measure knowledge of something without it being contextualized in some subjective view of reality.
If I ask questions about fried chicken and grits, Blacks will get more correct answers. If I ask questions about Taylor Swift and John Mayer lyrics, whites will get more correct answers. If I ask questions about both in equal amounts, the person who gets the most correct answers will on average be the smarter person. That’s how IQ tests work, of course.
“You keep saying “IQ measures”, yet you haven’t clearly articulated the specified measured object, the object of measurement and the measurement unit for IQ. You said THE SPECIFIED MEASURED OBJECT is whether they can solve problems. Take a stick. The stick is the MEASURED OBJECT, length is the OBJECT OF MEASUREMENT (the property being measured) and inches, centimeters, feet etc. are the MEASUREMENT UNITS. Plug in IQ here—what’s the answer? You’re saying that since we can use a test or questionnaire and obtain numerical values that there is something being measured but that claim is laughable.”
You don’t understand what length is. It’s defined in respect to other things, such as the speed of light. What is the speed of light defined in respect to? The fact that every observer perceives it at the same speed. But that means they will measured different lengths for the same object depending on the speed they are moving relative to it. Which means… everything is measured relative to everything else. But yet we still believe in their validity because we have universal shared context… not because there is noncontextual measurement unit of length.
“The test was designed first (the so-called measurement instrument) and then the “meaning” (what it measures) of the test is determined after the fact, by inspecting correlations between similar tests. Of course certain cognitive processes are necessary to be able to solve IQ test problems and the academic knowledge on them, but this is observed with the relation between IQ and achievement tests. They are different versions of the same test which is why they correlate. Looking at the history of the thermometer, we can see that it was constructed independently of the measurement device but of course the same isn’t true for IQ as they are validated by similar tests with similar item content making the process circular.”
I’ve already explained. Any measurement of knowledge is a subsets of all possible knowledge. By extrapolating we can get a very reliable measure of someone’s nonculturally specific knowledge/intelligence.
“I looked in the dictionary that said” lmao”
I wanted to let you know how easy it was to show that IQ denialists are wrong.
“So how do IQ tests “measure” that if one necessarily needs to be exposed to the items to be able to answer them?”
You are not exposed to the solution, but you are given the tools needed to get to the solution. Because for IQ tests all that is needed is the ability to model various aspects of reality in one’s mind.
“I asked for items since you made specific claims about them. Test items are chosen due to the fact that they get a certain distribution. I’ve provided numerous references for my claims and many examples of items, yet you cling to same narrative in your head without giving examples of what you’re talking about. That’s very strange.”
No specific item can be shown to be completely culturally unbiased since we can’t exhaustively define all knowledge included in a culture in the first place. We can only try our best, but such is how we make all decisions.
“When I say that X is irreducible, I mean that X isn’t able to be explained by looking at the parts. I mean that it isn’t explained by physical processes. It isn’t explained by the parts that make up the whole.”
You realize… physical processes aren’t explained by physical processes? Nothing about a baseball bat hitting a ball explains how the ball flies in the other direction, that is simply our apriori perception of causality.
Your metaphysical assumptions are simply inconsistent.
“I asked you earlier: Do brains think or do humans think?”
They both think. Humans think, using brains. Perhaps all matter is conscious but only has specific human type of consciousness when organized in a certain way, as a brain is. I don’t see how this is relevant to IQ in this discussion.
poor blighty.
how the mighty have fallen.
marx and engels wrote their best stuff living in england…but they were continentals…gross!
BUT christian socialism IS british.
does LOADED blame the british for making him short?
i blame your mother for not having aborted you.
“In my opinion, among gentiles, anti-Semitism is a sign of schizophrenia while philo-semitism is a sign of autism.”
In my experience, (Anglo) protestants are generally philosemitic and Catholics are at least mildly antisemitic. Protestants tend to be crudely literal and rationalistic in their exegesis, consistent with a diagnosis of autism. Catholics tend toward more sophisticated, multi-layered readings and are considerably more prone to visionary experiences.
PP, I think you may be right. We need more schizophrenia and less autism.
St. Francis > Martin Luther
Thomas Aquinas > John Calvin
once again peepee has banned my email and my comment is lost, because i didn’t copy it.
it used to be saved and peepee has no explanation why it hasn’t been.
1. peepee will do an article proving she has addressed this issue or i will never post again.
2. if she needs to leave wordpress then she’ll need to leave wordpress.
TOTALLY INEXCUSABLE BEHAVIOR.
I have no idea what you’re talking about and no one else has reported any similar problem.
Since “whiteness” is a thing (that needs to be abolished) there should be a thing such as “Jewishness”.
Jewishness: The need to obfuscate one’s religion, ethnicity, and ancestral history in order to gain the most from societal systems and avoid the most drawbacks.
What’s funny is anyone on any vaguely HBD-related blog or even alt right blog is engaging in basically the same “academic displicine” as whiteness studies does. Evaluating society and just throwing shit out there that makes sense to them without any real proof.
The actor of Jeffrey Dahmer is not as handsome as the real one.
Also, I have never seen a Hitler actor who didn’t look older/balder/greasier and just generally uglier than the actual guy.
I’m guessing a lot of historical leaders (regardless of their morality) were “genetically superior” and looked younger than most people at the time. Plus they usually came from wealthier households of course.
Dahmer was repulsive. He had the typical homogay physiognomy: the cold, dead eyes of a man who lived only to sate his lusts.
Hitler wasn’t bad-looking. We probably won’t get an objective portrayal of him in film for at least another fifty years.
Hitler was a monster in the original sense of the word, which indicated something inhuman (but also – in a limited respect – superhuman). Dahmer was just a sadistic faggot, different from the usual leather bar degenerates only in degree.
Not gonna disagree with you there.
Dahmer also looks very unevolved and animalistic, with not much behind his eyes.
But the real Dahmer has a more Ricky Martin type look, while the fake Dahmer looks more like a pasty betacuck that people would stereotype as an incel killer. Just interesting that Netflix would do that. Although the actor/makeup probably looks closer to Dahmer than any Hitler actor ever did to Hitler.
What does PP think of the biomedical model of psychiatry (that mental illnesses are brain diseases)?
I think that’s largely true. Schizos for example are found to have oversized ventricles. In autism, the brain’s pruny process goes awry.
I think it’s harmful and I don’t see how what you said follows—it’s an example of the post hoc fallacy. Since biological/psychological reductionism is false, then we can’t locate the problems and cure for the diseases in the brain. The “chemical imbalance” model of depression has come under a ton of fire recently with very forceful arguments against it—there is no support for the claim that low serotonin is a cause of depression. And the “genetics pillar” should be the next to fall.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-022-01661-0
https://www.madinamerica.com/2022/08/depression-genetics-pillar/
I’m glad you’re consistent on this, although I hope you could sense the inconsistencies for a long time and not just because some recent studies have been released.
Politically correct “libtards” have used the environment argument for intelligence for years yet seemingly accepted the chemical imbalance theory with open arms. Apparently they couldn’t connect the dots that the environment may also be important in mood regulation, and perhaps adhd and depression cases rising is not simply some genetic fluke that we need to drown in ssris and amphetamines.
“Politically correct “libtards” have used the environment argument for intelligence for years yet seemingly accepted the chemical imbalance theory with open arms.”
Philo has mentioned this before, but many progressives also have this hypocrisy regarding gay people. More specifically, there is this conflation between something being a choice and something not being ‘genetic’ (resistant to environmental influence). Homosexuality is definitely due to the environment, considering it arises from the brain. But that doesn’t mean people choose to be gay.
Maybe the reason POCs are more likely to be gay is the fact that so many of them come from single-parent homes.
Yeah I think realizing that the brain is part of the environment is really important, not just in debates about IQ, but in a metaphysical sense. I wouldn’t force the point to RR so much normally but I think it’s genuinely important and it’s the type of observation that helps bridge or explain a lot of the apparent disagreement between differing viewpoints on nature vs. nurture.
And a lot of people also ignore about sexuality that one’s preferences, even within the same sex, can change over time. There can be some element of choice, since a lot of sexual fantasies involve taboos, and taboos are heavily situational and depends on one’s morality. I suppose you could say that’s not choice since you don’t exactly choose your morals, but the point is that what sexually stimulates you is much more in your control than simply “see tig ole bitties… neurons activated”.
autism is a genetic inferiority. how do you reconcile that Ganzir?
Ouch!
You’re a genetic inferiority.
your mother doesnt think so.
I showed your comments to my mother and she agreed that only a genetic inferior could write them.
Sounds like youre not the only autistic one in the family then lmao.
Actually Loaded I have suggested autism was created by the economic elites. Its not ‘inferiority’. Theres a very useful purpose for autists in this world.
Not in Africa where you need to club people to death in their sleep.
But in civilised society.
i know you believe that. its not something novel youve thought of either many have postulated that autism is a useful tool to control humans with.
but i disagree. autism is mostly a devastating syndrome that only yields only a small percentage of people that are actually beneficial to society in any way. most autists are barely able to comprehend language. its sad but true.
Actually Loaded I have suggested autism was created by the economic elites. Its not ‘inferiority’. Theres a very useful purpose for autists in this world.
like steve shoe and chinapipo in general.
sad.
Are gays genetically inferior Puppy?
I would never use that term but sadly Rushton would have considered them to be in my opinion, at least the male ones. He felt a lot of black men were gay.
Why ‘sadly’? The overwhelming majority of homosexual men are promiscuous and hedonistic to the point of self-destruction. AIDS went pandemic SOLELY because fags can’t be bothered to use condoms. They’re also several times more likely than their heterosexual counterparts to molest children.
Atheists are consistently guilty of committing the genetic fallacy in the sphere of social ethics. “Condemnation of homosexuality comes from the Bible, so it MUST be irrational”. No, that does not follow. The ancients codified basic moral injunctions as divine imperatives to amplify their force and effectiveness.
Ahahahaha Kanye West is going even further than Mel Gibson with the truth.
I don’t care if hes a useful negro. He will never work in Hollywood or Paris again with these comments. He’s in severe trouble.
Now do you believe me Puppy? You can’t mind control blacks. They are wayyy to schizophrenic.
Kanye is too big to fail. He’s best friends with Jay-Z (who also has been critical of Jews), a Kardashian’s baby daddy, and a world-renowned producer/rapper with millions and millions of fans willing to make whatever excuse for his shit behavior.
Kanye can’t be silenced, but he CAN be brainwashed! Why do you think he’s religious? Why do you think he’s a Trump Supporter?? Do you know how many Trump supporters are paranoid about the government yet pledge their undying allegiance to a well-known con man? All of them.
You wanna know what’s more important than throwin’ away money at a strip club? Credit
You ever wonder why Jewish people own all the property in America? This how they did it
This comment was supposed to be addressed to Philo, but whatever.
Good points, but I do think Kanye is making a much stronger point about Jewish control than Jay Z is, at least in that quote. And a lot of rappers have weird conspiracy theories about AIDS and religion and illuminati, but Kanye is making a much bigger and more convincing case than they do… it could be that I just agree with his points but this definitely seems different than most controversial take by rappers. I think a lot of people get the feeling that Kanye is more intelligent and genuine than most other entertainers, at least about certain things.
I’m not sure how much of a splash he’s making in the mainstream though because I basically don’t watch mainstream media.
IMO Trump supporters can be very annoying, but also a very good force (obviously you disagree). I agree with him as a balancing force and some of the general trends he has brought, but he has that conman element. I initially bought the conman angle (I was somewhat of a progressive in 2016 but always a bit race realist)
Unfortunately, a lot of MAGAs are either too lazy, or simply hopeless, and put all their trust into him. Instead of simply backing him and using him as their force in politics. A lot honestly believe God is behind him, which makes them look positively idiotic. (But this might actually be useful in some sense because it keeps MAGA power abstract which is where is should be)
“And a lot of rappers have weird conspiracy theories about AIDS and religion and illuminati, but Kanye is making a much bigger and more convincing case than they do…”
He does, too, though. He believes in the Illuminati. He is very religious and believes that Blacks are the real Jews.
In my opinion, one of the best social intelligence tests is whether you believe the 2020 election was stolen. Trump is an obvious con man, and it’s so frustrating seeing how many people buy the bullshit.
“I treat the cash the way the government treats AIDS
I won’t be satisfied ’til all my niggas get it, get it?”
-Kanye West
Why do you conflate acceptance of common cultural conceptions of reality with social intelligence? A good test of social intelligence is knowing what drives people to believe in certain ideologies over others, not knowing what sort of ideologies accurately represent reality. Some people might reject the idea of a fair election not because they’re socially retarded but because they hate the system that didn’t give them the results they wanted.
Although I guess rejection of said system might reflect some other more fundamental stupid belief. I by default assume anything the US government does isn’t done with any sort of good intention. This belief also made me suspect Trump. I don’t see why they’d make someone who’s genuinely against their system so popular by putting all eyes on him. With Putin, I can understand. He’s doing something that’s “undeniable”. Trump just talked.
I don’t believe there is a conflation because one highly correlates to the other. I understand that the belief is rooted in a partially justified anti-authoritarianism, but a person with normal social intelligence would see past that.
I hate the government too, but I don’t believe in every single conspiracy attribute to them, regardless of which one of my heroes may believe it also.
Speaking of Jews, fuck Bill Maher. The dude has become a cuck lately with his absolutely brain-dead takes on Ukraine, Trans people, and COVID. He tries to disguise his ignorance of basic political/scientific ideas as just having ‘common sense.’ He’s like a human version of Brian Griffin.
He had a chance to call Netanyahu out on his corruption and instead made dumbass jokes about Kanye. I mean, you could maybe argue that Netanyahu wouldn’t have done the interview unless they agreed not to discuss the charges, but at that point, why even do the interview? Just so the dude could call Israel’s hypocrisy ‘fake news’ and refuse to denounce Trump? Disgusting
And who are the idiots cheering on all of Bibi’s lies? Did Bibibi fill the audience with Lion and Israelis? If those are gentile Americans, then I have to laugh at the stupidity and autism.
Bill undoubtedly has the dumbest fucking audience out of any political talk show host. These morons cheer and laugh whenever there’s a pause in the conversation, whether it calls for it or not.
At one point, Bill kicked out his audience because they kept booing some of his more bigoted jokes, and now he only keeps ass-kissers in the stands.
Also, the appeal to identity politics that Bibi pulled out of his ass at the last minute is only going to further validate antisemitic conspiracists.
Face it Melo. Kanye is not even the speck on the shoes of the jews. They could totally socially outcast Kanye and Kanyes only followers would be the blacks who nobody cares about from a political perspective. Kanye is already being cut off from the media and the banks. Pretty soon he will be bankrupt.
They did it to Mel Gibson, my personal hero and Mel was way less deranged than Kanye.
In a war between Kanye and the jews I would put my house on jews winning and making an example of Kanye such that no black will ever dare speak in public against jews again.
Frankly, even if Obama started somehow talking about his boss Robert Rubin negatively and made announcements on Twitter that jews control everything, the jews would easily crush Obama and distort everything to the point where Obama’s liberal followers would start drooling and saying Obama was crazy or a Trump supporter. Since you are a stupid person, you would also call Obama a Trump supporter if Obama spoke out against Jews because CNN would tell you to think that.
The power of the Jews isn’t in the media or the money….its in the mind.
As usual, you believe Jews have more power than they actually do. Thousands of his fans are already justifying his words and becoming ‘black-pilled’ about Jews.
You can’t actually be canceled if you have a die-hard fanbase. Dababy went on some ‘homophobic’ rant at one of his concerts, and now he’s been blackballed. Eminem literally said faggot a million times in his first 3 albums, and yet here he still is. Do you know what the difference is? Eminem has a million Stans who would die for him. In fact, if Eminem had run for president against Trump in 2016, HE WOULD HAVE WON.
Jews don’t control the narrative to the extent that you believe. If they did, Liberals wouldn’t be so pro-palestine.
You just don’t get it. Eminem went on tv and kept apologising for bashing the gays and this was back when Obama was against gay marriage. Eminem did a song with Elton John to prove he wasn’t against gays.
Even when he was making jews millions in album sales, they were willing to torch him. So you can imagine how disposable they think Kanye now is.
Now multiply that by 100 when talking about contesting jewish power directly instead of gays. All the power of the gays, the blacks, womens rights….basically its jews. So obviously if you contest jewish power they will crush you. They will call famous and prominent blacks and bend them with blackmail and bribery to take on Kanye. Kanye can’t beat this. There’s zero chance he will beat them. He will be effectively barred from all the internet and they will send an army of lawyers and even law enforcement to destroy him.
And then you say he has fans?
Tomorrow Melo and his friends will read the NYT/CNN/E Online/Daily Mail etc etc and the jewish article will say Kanye is a russian spy and about 50% of Kanye’s low IQ followers will totally believe it.
Look, frankly, I want Kanye to win this but rationally he has no chance. I think he will end up like Mel Gibson, maybe much worse because Kanye has serious mental health problems and isn’t as smart as Mel.
“Eminem went on tv and kept apologising for bashing the gays and this was back when Obama was against gay marriage. Eminem did a song with Elton John to prove he wasn’t against gays.”
That’s not really true. Em never really apologized; he just went on stage with Elton John.
“All the power of the gays, the blacks, womens rights….basically its jews. ”
And I think this highlights your lack of social intelligence. I’ve said you’re smarter than Mugabe regarding that, but you’re not that good. You have to understand nuance to see how the world really works.
Obviously, I brought up the gays because I know you attribute LGBTQ acceptance to Jews, but in reality, people get canceled for hating on gays because most people aren’t homophobic. Moreover, Dababy got blackballed because there were so many gay people in the music industry. Combine those two things, and it explains why he fell off the map.
Eminem is impervious to this because 1. his fanbase is a million times larger and more loyal. And 2. they consist of white trash whites who come from a generation when homophobia was more socially acceptable.
Kanye has the first going for him, but he also has something that Eminem didn’t acquire until later. Independence. Kanye cannot be canceled because he’s not financially dependent on any of these people. He can insult whoever he wants. At the end of the day, you think Jews have more power than they do, and I know I can’t convince you otherwise because of your low IQ. However, when I am inevitably proven right, you better be ready to get on your knees and suck this Filipenis.
Morality for liberals (and most Westerners) is whatever people like Harvey Weinstein say. Think about that. The morality of liberals is designed by psychopaths.
Harvey Weinstein is a pretty good example of the people that control the media and the college textbooks, and therefore, morality.
Melo reads Weinstein’s books and watches his movies and thinks theres some profound truth about morality in there. When Mel watches Django Unchained he thinks Jamie Foxx is a superhero.
Frankly, Mugabe might believe in stupid mythology, but his moral compass at least has something solid involved. Whereas Melo’s ideas are totally bankrupt and propagated by very sick and sinister individuals.
My morality stems from just wanting to treat people kindly. My morality is similar to the vast majority of people in the modern world.
You’re desperately trying to explain why everyone is not as racist as you, but the fact of the matter is that you’re just a bad person. Tribalism is normal, racism is not, and no amount of kicking and screaming to the contrary will change that.
Black people are objectively bad people. I dislike bad people. I am more moral than you.
Also jews are objectively bad people too. Even worse than blacks actually.
LMAO!
Pill youre a self consumed asshole. How can you of all people talk about morals?
Didn’t JP Rushton have a mulatto child with a black woman? He never said blacks are genetically inferior.
He’s probably like me. He just thinks its a bad thing for civilisation to have blacks around.
Rushton explains his views here:
Well then hes wrong. Basically hes saying here that jews are the most evolved human because of the developed brain but we all know basically they are just sharks that can do theoretical physics.
Intelligence is not the only trait needed for survival. Blacks have gigantic testosterone. Asians are very hive minded and that works for them etc etc.
to go back in the past is everything. you can create multiple realities.
Pill you are a scum human. You have no dignity when it comes to treating people well. You are the most malevolent user on this blog.
You saying you want a better civilization for anyone but yourself shows awful self awareness! You are a self indulgent self righteous low life schiz. Own it!
schlitzie vs dogs
Women are fucking retards! The female gender is a disgrace and a testament to weakness.
women are scandalous. they dont stop at anything to see themselves prevail. they are persistent but in a bad way. sad to see our society being torn up by them.