I call myself Pumpkin Person.  All my life I’ve been fascinated by abnormal psychology, human evolution, IQ, and horror. I have another blog but it’s no longer active because it made more sense to blog from just this location.

52 thoughts on “About”

  1. Bradley Cooper said:

    What is the color of your eyes and of your hairs ?

  2. Hi Pumpkin Person

    i found this cool link on facebook


    they analyse all your data on facebook and who your friends are and how smart they are based on likes posts and book they have read. it seems that data analytics have have become advanced enough to measure crystallized intelligence with picture recognition through deep learning and text analysis. i post lots of science stuff on facebook and beautiful pictures and by doing 20 tests on this sight they are accurate to the degree that they have picture recognition and translation. one of my friend on facebook is Stefan wolfram and this increases my IQ score but just like certain tests only measure so high because of norming i think the highest score you can get on nametest is 155 which is what i got.


    my fluid intelligence is still really low at FSIQ 108 on ther wais 4 but i know you like to evaluate IQ methodologies so i though id post this message because i wanted to know if this nametest site has good methodology. i think this is a form of artificial intelligence.

  3. Afrosapiens said:

    I read the “about” page of your former blog, with this and our exchanges in the comment section, I got to understand you better.

    First thing, I kind of appreciate you, you don’t pretend having universal and omniscient eyes and you are quite honest with respect to the extent of your knowledge of the world.

    However, when I read about your fascination for IQ, how amazing this number appears to you with its ability to “predict” various life outcomes, you sound to me as someone who just met god. A world that was mysterious and obscure to you suddenly became limpid and self-evident thanks to IQ and genes (or rather heritability) much like god and the holy spirit are in other belief systems.

    But have you ever thought of the possibility that life outcomes could predict IQ as they predict health, educational attainment, professional success and other things ? Have you ever considered studying what causes the life of each individual to turn as it does, from birth to death ? Have you also tried to put yourself in a different person’s shoes and figure out how different could be your perception of the world in a different context ? Do you really think your theories help you understanding others ? Do you feel comfortable judging other people’s intelligence when you did not even bother understanding their lives and the external factors they have to deal with ?

  4. I searched your blog with the search function but no blog post are about CHC

  5. These are my scores from 2009 on the Wais 4

    WMI – 103
    VCI – 117
    VIQ – 110

    PRI – 120
    PSI – 92
    PIQ – 106

    FSIQ – (110 + 106) / 2 = 108
    GAI – 115


    My PSI on the test was way to low. It could be higher because on the symbol subtests I could have used a technique to get into the 99 percentile. So for PSI I substituted my score with the score I got on the Stroop test and the coefficient of it.

    WMI – 103
    VCI – 117
    VIQ – 110

    PRI -120
    Stroop test 99%*0.8 = 79.2% = 112
    PSI – 112
    PIQ – 116

    FSIQ – (110 + 116) / 2 = 113

    113 = 80th percentile


    IQ is about metabolic efficiency which is the amount of energy it takes you brain to solve a problem. Every 5 point increase in IQ is double the metabolic efficiency.

    metabolic efficiency = 2^((IQ – 100) / 5)

    113 – 100 = 13

    13 / 5 = 2.6

    2^2.6 = 6

    IQ 113 = 6x metabolic efficiency

    Recently I have been taking cogentin and I think this has increased my IQ by 5 points so I should have an IQ of 118.

    2^((118 – 100) / 5) = 12.12

    IQ 118 = 12x metabolic efficiency

    In the future we can give everyone smart drugs. A breeding program will not be necessary because drugs will be developed before designer babies. And nanotechnology will happen by 2025. We can improve everyone and this will happen soon.

  6. I’m currently taking abnormal psych. My professor GUSHES over Freud and how he was “so important to the field of psychodynamics”. Here’s the funny part. I can say all the wrong things about something, someone can refute me, then people can say RACEREALIST WAS SO IMPORTANT TO THE FIELD! ALL THINGS IN THE FIELD EITHER COME FROM HIM OR ARE A RESPONSE TO HIM! See how stupid that sounds?

    I find it so funny. Psychology is subjective, and you will get different things from different psychologists. We know that 80 percent of tests cannot be replicated, save for IQ tests.

    She talked about ink blots last week and I said is there a book or something that shows examples of what each one may mean? She said no and it’s all subjective to the individual researcher. That is wild!! This is why the field of abnormal psych is a joke IMO. There needs to be an objective, not subjective, method to evaluate things.

    Have you read what Kevin MacDonald says about Feud in the Culture of Critique?

    • I haven’t read Culture of Critique but I have mixed views on Freud.

      • What do you think of Freud? I think abnormal psychology is interesting, but it’s so subjective to the individual researcher that it’s pretty much useless imo.

        You should read The Culture of Critique. It’s a great book. You. Should read all three of professor MacDonald’s books on the psychology of the Jews. They’re great reads.

        I think psychology can be a good field, sans Jewish influence.

      • A lot of Freud’s ideas are so hard to prove or disprove that I don’t spend a lot of time thinking about them. They’re not really science.

      • Freud is pretty much a hack. Basing his theories off of his childhood experiences as well as his sample of patients, which consisted of mostly women, and some people still talk about it and gush over him.

    • THe Philosopher said:

      Freuds sociological work is very impressive. His psychology is conjecture. His personal success as a psychiatirst with patients is not that good considering his acclaim in the 20th century.

    • The Philosopher said:

      Racerealist doesn’t understand that all science started from intuition.

      Wanna ask Newton about whether he thinks the Bible is literal?

      • I know that. Just because we take things as literal doesn’t mean they are though. Freud is one of the biggest hacks of all time. Right up there with Boas.

        Most of Freuds theories are trash, some of them have some utility though. Moreover, like 80 percent of his patients were women. That doesn’t carry over to men.

      • The Philosopher said:

        Like all field originators, most of it looks thrash with the passing of time. Field originators rely on intuition more than induction at the start.

        He had very limited tools, and there was nobody else really writing about it. The statistics and analytics tools were nowhere near advanced. The idea his patients were not a representative sample size he wouldn’t accept, nor grasp, nor care.

        Even physical medicine back then looks borderline quack now.

        His sociology work is 1st rate though.

        And some of his theories do stand the test of time.

        Which makes me think Freud is kind of like me.

        I don’t need to see my wife come home smelling like sex 5 times on Saturday morning before I beat her up. Its not a good way to create knowledge waiting around like that. For a psychologist to say anything with great replicability and external val, you’re talking multi-million dollar experiments and crazy luck with sampling. Strong observation and inferences from the guys taking data and as Aquinas says taking a logical leap and pretending there is a certain variables about people which always tend to be and do the best you can controlling everything else.

        Psychology is bloody tough, if done ‘scientifically’. If done intuitively like Freud, sure 50% looks stupid, but the other stuff at least can be published and we have something.

        I know about the test hierarchy, alpha/beta, reflexivity, and other stuff through observation in the first order. I prove it in the second. But that doesn’t mean what I observe is not reality in the first order perhaps. The question you would have then is whether it’s true or logical to say what I see makes sense.

        And so we created a fairly autistic way to standardise ‘makes sense’ to the masses.

        But, you know, me and Sigmund make some mistakes reading too much into things. And it can be embarrassing.

        If Freud was alive today, he would be the world leader in the field, because he was a genius and thought systematically, and with stats and larger samples, he could make more robust claims.

  7. https://scholarship.rice.edu/bitstream/handle/1911/71684/RANDALL-THESIS.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

    You would find the information on page 24 very interesting.

    IQ and SAT data was pulled from students at Rice University who participated in this study.

    Average SAT: 1420/1600 with an SD of 113.
    Average Wonderlic: 30/50 with an SD of 7.

    I was surprised by the result. 30/50 is an IQ around 120 or so. 7/50 is an SD around 14.


    1)SAT practice probably inflated the g-loading of the student’s scores. Nevertheless, they are really intelligent as a group. This becomes clear if you look at the fairly high mean and the very high standard deviation. 15% of students have IQ’s above 134. 5% of students have IQ’s above 144.
    2) This report was published in 2010. The average SAT of Rice admits have increased greatly recently. The average IQ probably has too.

  8. test

  9. Interesting blog. I was somewhat surprised reading your summaries of average IQ for different races, given the negative response Dawkins got from making very similar observations. The focus on facts rather than concern over who you might offend is quite refreshing … and something I have an appreciation for as an Aspie. Speaking of Aspies, do you think there is a difference in prevalence according to race? There seems to be more Caucasian Aspies than Negroid or Mongoloid, but that could just be sampling bias.
    Also on the topic of Aspies (or ASD in general), have you seen the RAADS-R?
    It’s a lot cheaper than a FMRI, has close to the same accuracy, and I found it was easy to self-administer.
    p.s. you can add my 150 WAIS-IV IQ (administered 4 years ago by a psychologist) to your collection of IQ data.

    • What did Dawkins say about race and IQ? I know be accepts the taxonomic reality of race.

      I think Aspergers follows Rushton’s rule. Asians seem to be more autistic and blacks less so.

      How much was the WAIS – IV?

  10. PP

    Do you know what the correlation is between 8th grade achievement tests, ie the GEPA and IQ is? Or if there is a strong correlation at all?

  11. coupbletante said:

    Was reading your old blog and saw the poll attempting to guess your IQ. What did the correct answer turn out to be?

  12. Hi, PP. Could you estimate Noam Chomsky’s IQ?

  13. P.P. what would be Marx’s IQ? I’d like to know what you estimate is the intelligence of the Left’s main deity.

  14. Can you take on Ed Witten? I’d like to know in your estimate what’s his IQ.

  15. What’s Charles Murray’s IQ according to you?

  16. My ability to think.

    Hold information and
    manipulate it at speed
    IQ 92

    Verbal and Spatial/logic
    IQ 130

    “Intelligence is the ability to synthesize information usefully.”

    Animekitty’s view:

    Map reality, manipulate/change the map to change reality. (survival)

  17. In 2009 I took the WAIS-3 not 4
    I found out 3 has picture arrangement but 4 does not.

    WAIS-3 scores
    VC – 117
    PR – 120
    WM – 103
    PS – 92

    FSIQ – 108
    (g) 115



    FSIQ – 113
    (g) 130

    VC – 132
    PR – 121
    WM – 95
    PS – 86

  18. 1 second = 1,000 milliseconds.
    axons fire every 5 milliseconds is 200 impulses a second.

    IQ 93 = reaction time of 300 milliseconds.
    This is 60 of 200 impulses.

    An increase of 2 milliseconds = 1 IQ point.

    IQ 93 is 60 of 200 impulses. (300 milliseconds)
    IQ 143 is 40 of 200 impulses. (200 milliseconds)
    IQ 193 is 20 of 200 impulses. (100 milliseconds)
    IQ 218 is 10 of 200 impulses. (50 milliseconds)
    IQ 230 is 5 of 200 impulses. (25 milliseconds)

    I doubt reaction time can go below 50 milliseconds.
    But reaction time would only have to do with processing speed.
    Brain structure would be important for WM, VC and PR.
    Being fast you also have to do something significant.
    Otherwise your an Autistic Savant.

  19. Hey Pumpkin, is there a good way to combine the IQ scores/g-factors from two or more data points?
    Averaging doesn’t seem to work very well.

    For instance, let’s say you’re 2.5 SD above the mean on a test that correlates with g by 0.8.
    So your g-factor can be estimated as 2.5*0.8 = 2 SD above the mean, right?

    Then if you do another test that correlates 0.7 with g, you would expect to score 2*0.7 = 1.4 SD above the mean on that test, right? (Let’s assume the two tests only correlate because of the g-factor)
    However, if you then tried to estimate a g-factor from the second test, you only get 1.4*0.7 = 0.98 SD above the mean.

    So you got two data points for the g-factor: 2 SD and 0.98 SD.
    Two data points should yield a better estimate than one.
    However, even though the first indicated a g-factor of 2 SD above the mean and on the second test you got the score predicted from a g-factor of 2 SD above the mean, any sort of averaging between the two g-estimates will result in a g-factor of less than 2 SD.
    That doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

    What about averaging the raw test scores?
    The two tests together probably can’t have a g-correlation much higher than 0.9.
    To get a g-factor of 2 SD from that, the average raw scores would have to be 2/0.9 = 2.2 SD
    I can’t think of any sort of correlation weighted average of 2.5 SD and 1.4 SD that results in 2.2 SD.
    And I think the problem would just get worse with a greater difference in the correlations between the tests.

    • What about averaging the raw test scores?
      The two tests together probably can’t have a g-correlation much higher than 0.9.
      To get a g-factor of 2 SD from that, the average raw scores would have to be 2/0.9 = 2.2 SD
      I can’t think of any sort of correlation weighted average of 2.5 SD and 1.4 SD that results in 2.2 SD.
      And I think the problem would just get worse with a greater difference in the correlations between the tests.

      The problem is you’re using the average score when you should be using the composite score:


      • Thanks a lot Pumpkin, I thought you if anyone would know how to do this!
        Ah, the magic of numbers…

        If anyone is curious about my example the calculation turn out thusly:

        (2.5+1.4)/square root of (1+1+2(0.7*0.8)) = 2.21 SD above the mean IQ

        Since we know how each test correlates with g and with each other, I think that means the combined test should correlate with g by (0.8+0.7)/square root of (1+1+2(0.8*0.7)) = 0.85

  20. Some Guy said:

    Hey Pumpkin, has anyone compared racial IQs the following way:
    Listing the age at which high IQ groups have the same IQ as the adults of lower IQ groups.

    For instance if the average adult african-american has the same IQ the average white 13.5* year old, it’s easy to intuitively understand what intellectual level they’re on.

    *Assuming adult IQ is reached at age 16, a rough estimate gives 0.84*16 = 13.44 year old. Looking up at what age someone with 100 IQ on age approriate norms scores 84 IQ on adult norms would be much more accurate I assume.

    • Yes Rushton would do that a lot

      • Some Guy said:

        I couldn’t find anything like that from Rushton with a quick googling, so I estimated an alternative ethnic group IQ list myself:

        Adult Equals Ashkenazi Age
        East Asian 15.2
        White 14.4
        Black 11.5
        Aboriginal Australian 6.9

        Calculated assuming Ashkenazi have an average IQ of 110 and that IQ is more or less stable after age 16 and using the table at http://miyaguchi.4sigma.org/BloodyHistory/ratioiq.html

        Feel free to check the accuracy of this by for example looking at what age someone someone with 110 IQ would score 84 IQ on the 16-year WISC norms.

  21. Some Guy said:

  22. Jakov Munjiz said:

    P.P., now that the last season of GoT is being broadcasted, it would be a good moment for you to give your estimate of George R. R. Martin’s IQ.

  23. ktang999 said:

    Hi Pumpkin Person,

    I was very intrigued by your extrapolation of the WAIS-IV scaled scores with Jesse Watters, and was wondering if you’d do the same for my scores? I only took the 10 core subtests (limited budget), and I’ve included raw scores for the subtests I hit the ceiling on.

    Test: score (raw)

    Block Design: 19 (66)
    Similarities: 19 (36)
    Digit Span: 19 (58/48 — asked a family member to “extend” the ceiling, though I don’t know how valid this was; I ended up sequencing 12 digits forward and 10 digits backward)
    Matrix Reasoning: 18
    Vocabulary: 19 (55)
    Arithmetic: 19 (22 — felt like it could’ve been at least 22 scaled; the questions all felt extremely doable)
    Symbol Search: 19 (100/60 — finished in 72/120 seconds and had time to check all of my answers [I didn’t end up changing any], so this is another extrapolation)
    Visual Puzzles: 17
    Information: 19 (26)
    Coding: 16

    I was 19 years old at the time of the test.

  24. Some Guy said:

    Conan O’Brien’s head seems pretty big:

  25. Protogonus said:

    The most sophisticated idea about native intelligence (“IQ”) was a late Soviet idea, which showed up in a Dictionary of Psychology there whose exact name is not longer with me. It claimed, with complete seriousness, that intelligence is THE ABILITY TO WORK ALONE. Naturally, by “work” one means PRODUCTIVE WORK, whose objective measure is, of course, strictly social and communal, based on the long-term cultural effect of the intellect in question. I do believe this is the correct view and consider my own abilities, if any I have, in that light. Unlike most IQ measurements, nothing of worth on this view is COMMUNAL except by implication, both in origin and prospect. An interesting thought from communists, no? The best idealist context to keep in mind is the famous remark of great Plotinus (d. 270 A.D.) to the effect that all of life is THE FLIGHT OF THE ALONE TO THE ALONE.

  26. Are you familiar with Karl Pilkington, Pumpkin?
    He’s this unintentionally hilarious British guy with an IQ of 83. Literally any anything with him and Ricky Gervais is hilarious, for example:

    Also, there’s a HBD subreddit in case didn’t know: https://www.reddit.com/r/HBD/top/?t=all

  27. Apparently there’s a site that lists the known ancestries of celebrities, for example:


    They should really get a “sort by popularity”-feature though.

  28. This is the HoF page of your blog, Pumpkin. I’m honored to be part of the club.

  29. Everyone has different ideas about what is smart. Everyone’s perception of you will be different and will rely on their worldview. That is why u cant impress everyone, unless youre the chosen one!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.