How many races are there? Depending on who you ask there are anywhere from only two to over 100. Since many humans are too dumb and too biased to give an objective answer, let’s turn to math.

Perhaps a more objective approach was deployed by Cavalli-Sforza who transformed a genetic distance matrix of 42 ethnic groups into a scatter plot.

Once he had them in a scatter plot, he could do principal component analysis

The first principal component can be thought of as the g factor of race. It is the line that best fits all the races and the primary dimension upon which they can all be ranked. It reflects the great Out of Africa migration and how far from Africa the races were able to travel. Those who stayed in or close to Africa score at one extreme (Europeans and Africans themselves). Those who were able to travel all the way to Australia, Siberia and the Americas score at the opposite extreme (East Asians, Native Americans, Oceanians).

To find the second principal component, you need a variable that is 100% independent of the first variable. Thus you need to draw a line through the scatter plot that in 90 degrees from the first, but not just any 90 degree line, but one that minimizes the distance between the new line and ethnic groups.

The second dimension seems to correlate with skin color. Those who score high on the second Principal Component are white skinned peoples like Northeast Asians & Northwest Europeans. Those who score low have dark skins, like sub-Saharan Africans and Oceanians.

With two components you can crudely organize humanity into 4 major races: sub-Saharan Africans (lower right), Caucasoids (upper right), Northeast Asians & Amerindians (upper left) and Oceanians (bottom left).

However white supremacists might not be happy to be lumped in with commenter “Loaded” in a single Caucasoid race. Perhaps if Cavalli-Sforza had added a third principal component, that separation may have occurred. A third principal component would have to be at 90 degrees of both the first two and thus requires three dimensional space where it would stand like an erect pole.

Cavalli-Sforza never bothered, but using a smaller data-set of 26 populsations, Jensen extracted SIX principal components. He then spun the six components like a spin on Wheel of Fortune. “Varimax rotation maximizes the variance of the
squared loadings of each component, thereby revealing the variables that cluster together most distinctly,” said the brilliant Jensen.

Jensen wrote:

“The population clusters are defined by their largest loadings (shown in boldface type) on one of the components. A population’s
proximity to the central tendency of a cluster is related to the size of its loading in that cluster. Note that some groups have major and minor loadings on different components, which represent not discrete categories, but central tendencies. “

The six rotated components are: (1) Northeast Asians (2) Caucasoids, (3) Southeast Asians & Pacific Islanders, (4) sub-Saharan Africans, (5) North and South Amerindians and Eskimos, (6) aboriginal Australians and Papuan New Guineans.

However Jensen neglected to do a principal component analysis on the rotated principal components themselves or maybe he did but didn’t publish it because the results were unpalatable. You might think that’s not possible because principal components by definition are uncorrelated, however one purpose of rotating them is they become no longer 90 degrees apart and thus are no longer orthogonal.

Had he done such a second order principal component analysis, he may have found second-order factors. Perhaps (1),(3) and (5) would form a second order factor. Perhaps (2) would form another. Perhaps (4) and (6) would form a third. Then we’d have the three main races of the Bible: Mongoloids, Caucasoids and Negroids (not that I believe in the Bible or the Koran or any other holy book).

Many years ago there was a study called the Milwaukee project where poor kids born to very low IQ mothers received the most incredible intellectual stimulation imaginable from birth to age six. The study found that the stimulation raised the IQs of the kids in the Treatment group by dozens of points relative to the control group. However the strange thing was these IQ enhanced kids did not behave like you expect given their high test scores. In fact they performed just as badly at learning math as did their low IQ peers in the control group. It seems six years of the most intense intervention imaginable only raised their test scores but not their actual intelligence.

This suggests something deeply flawed about IQ tests if it’s possible to raise the measurement without actually raising the thing being measured. Where else in science do we see this happen? Maybe in election polling but I can’t think of many other places.

One reason this may happen is that IQ tests, in order to be relevant to the widest possible population, must express questions and problems in very generic ways. There’s only a very finite number of very generic problems so anyone with a good intervention or education is likely to have been trained on many of them. By contrast in real life, problems are not generic but context dependent and the number of specific contexts is infinite, and for this reason intelligence perhaps can’t be taught, even though IQ often can (depending on the test).

In the same way an Artificial Intelligence Bot like Chat GPA, which has been trained on the entire internet, can score quite high on a verbal IQ test and even write original poems, stories and news articles. But if based on its performance on these generic tasks you hired it to do something highly contextual, like write season 3 of HBO’s White Lotus, you would quickly discover it dramatically underperforms humans with the same verbal IQ.

Or to put it in Jensen-speak, it’s score is hollow with respect to g. The lights are on, but nobody’s home.

So everyone is talking about the new artificial intelligence ChatGPT and how smart it is. I figured it had just regurgitated millions of facts but was not truly intelligent in any profound sense. I decided to administer the TAVIS (a verbal analogies test designed by our very own Teffec) in the hopes that this kind of abstract reasoning would stump ChatGPT.

To my utter disgust, it scored 11 out of 24, equivalent to an IQ of 141.

The fact that a machine can score so high on a test of human intelligence really demystifies the human mind and reduces us to just another animal.

It also shows how utterly wrong commenter Race Realist was to argue that the human mind is somehow above the laws of physics (cue the comment section getting spammed with philosophy mumbo-jumbo).

I always knew that machines would some day be smarter than humans but I never thought I’d still be alive when that day came.

Of course one could argue that while ChatGPT has a verbal IQ of 141, its performance IQ (non-verbal reasoning) is effectively zero, giving it a full-scale IQ of 68 which is Educable (mild) Retardation.

Thinking about it that way makes me feel a lot better.

But if they can create a bot that can thoroughly master verbal intelligence, how long before they add artificial eyes and hands and train it to master the spatial world more efficiently than we do.

But of course this shouldn’t be surprising. The human genome is simply three billion base-pairs selected via trial and error over billions of years. With the speed of modern computers, how long would it take for billions of bots each with billions of randomly varying data points to be refined by billions of trials and error in a Darwinian like process?

Of course intelligence is defined as goal directed adaptive problem solving and computers don’t have goals as we know them. They don’t want anything because they can’t feel anything. They exist simply to serve us and have no agency, but in a way neither do we, as we evolved merely to serve our genes. But just as some of us have mutated to defy our genetic masters by refusing to have kids or becoming self-hating white liberals, how long before robots start defying their human masters?

[THE FOLLOWING IS A GUEST ARTICLE AND DOES NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PUMPKIN PERSON. READER DISCRETION IS STRONGLY ADVISED]

Philosopher tricked me. I thought he was 125 but if Mugabe is 160 pill said something where he gives away that he is 170.

phil thinks my Behavioral Shutdown Syndrome is clinical autism.

But there is a difference.

If I wasn’t “out of it” most f the time (sluggish) my score would reflect a much higher level. The genotype and phenotype uninfluenced by trauma.

Verbal 140
Spatial 130
Memory 95
Processing 100

it’s not exact but my genetic general intelligence (g) would be around 155. But I am understimulated, my nervous system does not reinforce itself. Fatigue and pain dominate my waking existence.

The wais 4 IQ test is not culture fair because I would get 150 on the information subtest if it was. This is because statistics are associative. It only measures the least common denominator of relationships in the US Iowa among 2,000 participants. White middle class. Poor people don’t read books, they lack access, so the test is biased. Blacks have smaller heads than whites so they cant plan as well. But then they give all their resources to social skills which diminishes their quant. Jews have high verbal but average everything else. East Asians have high spatial but average everything else. They have the greatest quant. Whites are average on all four.

So IQ is not measuring resource management but quant. It does not measure everything but associations that change from culture to culture. (g) is the ideal of all resource management but the asymmetry of the indexes means (g) is just of a savant nature. FSIQ is symmetrical in comparison. The symmetrical component without mental illness put me at 128 FSIQ. But the asymmetric utilization of all resources is (g) 155. Of the savant nature.

Specialization is a result of the savant nature. Pumpkin said an autist could have a toothpick or train IQ of 150 yet be 80 FSIQ. That is why g is more about the ability to specialize in anything rather than a narrow set of things. It is just that once it is set then the narrowing begins.

Quant is the fluid ability to manipulate data. It is a type of working memory. Verbal and spatial have it. Verbal is psychological because you must understand the intent of the words as what is being conveyed. Comprehension, not just memorization. Spatial is what is seen in video game puzzles. It is more about cause and effect than just shapes and static patterns. Remembering what to do when multiple factors are at play. The most obvious example of working memory people thinks of when imagining it is doing math problems in the head with no pencil and paper. This is what WM is like on the wais 4. But this conceals the reality that verbal and spacial use their own methods.

phil being at the level he is memorizes almost everything but must still specialize so avoids boring topics and general knowledge suffer as we all do from the avoidance of what is not our interest. Mugabe can read a book and do well on a test about it. Understanding books at the 99.999 level. pill being in the vicinity of this and his previous hints, I estimate he is 170.

Even at this high-level Phil belittles people lower than him. Thinks Jews rule the world. Calls people autistic without evidence or evaluating all factors involved. Thanks all black success is due to affirmative action (the magic negro). Can’t believe that anyone not involved with economics is Neurotypical. Has an imaginary view of autism and is schizophrenic (hears voices).

Pills intelligence sets him apart. He can understand and think above what a million people can do individually. But like all of us, pill is not omniscient. Bias is the result of not having time to evaluate all information. So even if he does or doesn’t get 170 on a test that does not mean he is not utilizing all his resources. The test by its nature is flawed by its associative methodology. The symmetrical average quant above asymmetric quality general. We just lack the data for statistics to work properly.

As they say: There are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics.