Trump blasted by intelligent older sister

Trump’s highly intelligent older sister was recently caught on tape blasting her younger brother. The 83-year-old federal judge is horrified at her younger brother’s behavior as President:

For me details, watch below video:

Long-term memory

My earliest memory is being in a crib, looking up at the ceiling, and being overwhelmed with claustrophobia. I also remember other things, like riding my toy truck into a crater in the middle of the road.

But do I really remember events from several decades ago, or do I just remember remembering? At age four you remember what happened at age two, but at age six, do you still remember what happened at age two or rather do you remember the much more recent remembering of what happened at age two. So by the time you’re in your thirties thinking you remember your toddler years, you’re just remembering a remembering of a remembering etc. Perhaps each memory of an event is like a xerox copy of the last time you remembered that event and so the quality decays each time and perhaps you only have so much time to remember the event (or remember its memory) before it’s lost forever.

Did I just come up with a new theory of long-term memory that will revolutionize cognitive science? Doubt it. Someone else probably though of it first.

Which IQ matters?

When one talks about height and how it relates to success in life or various sports, one almost always means peak height: How tall one was in early adulthood. But when talk about IQ and success in life, do we mean toddler IQ, childhood IQ, adolescent IQ, young adult IQ, middle age IQ, old age IQ or some composite of all of them?

Of course the correlation between IQ at different ages is very high, but part of the reason it is so high is that being a smart child helps you score high as an adult because vocabulary words acquired in childhood might still give you an edge on an adult IQ test. Culture reduced tests (i.e. Gestalt) allow us to measure IQ independently of past learning so perhaps these are best for distinguishing between childhood and adult IQ, but a huge part of intelligence is the ability to learn from the past.

Consider long-term memory. Does it make sense to distinguish between one’s long-term memory in childhood vs old age, since old people remember childhood events? Who has a better long-term memory? The 90-year-old who can remember what she did at age ten but can’t remember what she did at age 89, or vice versa?

Converting PATMA scores to IQ

I’m very gratified by the huge response to the PATMA. This test is dear to my heart because it’s the first program I ever executed online. I had to learn both Python and HTML (“Oh Easy Peasy; like doing long division in the 4th grade” as Oprah would say).

Speaking of what Oprah would say, there’s an entire generation that still programs in Quick Basic, and they just need to die:

Now here are the results of the poll of self-reported PATMA scores.

If we remove the ten fake scores of 10 added by commenter “Mug of Pee”, then perhaps 127 real votes give the following percentages.

10 = 14%

9 = 24%

8 = 24%

7 = 23%

6 = 11%

5 = 2%

3 = 1%

From here we get the following percentiles with their respective normalized Z scores:

10 = 86 (+1.07)

9 = 61 (+0.27)

8 = 37 (-0.33)

7 = 14 (-1.07)

6 = 3 (-1.87)

5 = 1 (-2.33)

4 = 1 (-2.33)

Based on previous research on a Gestalt test normed on the general white population, my readers have the following IQ distribution:

As you can see, an IQ of 137 puts you in the top 26% of my readers (+0.66 SD) while an IQ of 106 puts you at the 10th percentile (-1.27 SD). From here we can guestimate that on a scale where whites have a mean IQ of 100 with an SD of 15, my readers have a mean IQ of 126 with an SD of 16.

Thus, to convert PATMA scores to IQ, we multiply the normalized Z scores by 16 and add 126.

PATMA 10 = IQ 143 (very brilliant)

PATMA 9 = IQ 130 (brilliant)

PATMA 8 = IQ 121 (very bright)

PATMA 7 = IQ 109 (bright)

PATMA 6 = IQ 96 (U.S. average)

PATMA 5 = IQ 89 (dull)

PATMA 4 = IQ 89 (dull)

Of course these numbers are all very tentative and more research is needed.

[update aug 20, 2020: an earlier version of this article overestimated the IQ variability of my readers by giving too much weight to low outlier scores on the Gestalt test. Helpful feedback from commenter Rahul caused me to revise the numbers]

The Democratic convention

Been watching the Democratic convention on CNN this week and I agree with the CNN pundits that they did an excellent job considering covid precluded the large crowds and excitement that normally accompany such events.

There was an intimacy of seeing Dr. Jill Biden talking alone in a classroom about her husband and it was touching when old Joe creeped out of the corner to embrace her. Biden is the perfect person to steal the older working class white racist vote from Trump because he looks and sounds like an old white working class racist himself, yet by picking a woman of color as his running mate, he gets the minority vote to boot!

Thought Michelle Obama did a good job with her speech last night and it must be killing Barack that CNN keeps calling him the second best speaker in his family. Barack loves to praise Michelle himself (“she’s much better than I am”) but only because he gets the virtue signaling points of praising a black and a woman while resting assured that no one will believe it. But to hear it from the white and Jewish elites at CNN who really do believe it…oh that must have been painful.

When you’re half-white like Obama, you grow up thinking you’re special. He deliberately chose to get a black wife for political convenience but I doubt he ever saw her as even remotely his equal so to watch her eclipse him in star power has been tough, and we saw a glimpse of his jealousy when he was quoted as saying he wrote his book himself (a reference to the fact that Michelle’s huge best-selling memoir was ghost written).

Even better than Michelle’s speech was Bill Clinton’s. Despite being a weak elderly shadow of his former self, Clinton nailed Trump’s failure to take responsibility with one powerful line: “The buck never stops there”.

The 3 main divisions in the human species

There are many cranio-facial traits that separate us Humans from Neanderthals such as our spherical crania and small tucked in face. Just as skull dimensions can be used to divide the Homo genus into different species, they can also be used to divide our species into different races. In a landmark analysis called Cranial Cluster 28 Groups, Harvard anthropologist William W. Howells found that the many skull dimensions of 28 diverse human populations all fit nicely and neatly into just three categories which have historically been known as Negroid, Caucasoid and Mongoloid. In Howell’s tree Negroids would include Africans, Andaman Islanders, and Australoids. Caucasoids would include Caucaoids (duh!) and Amerindians and Mongoloids would include Japanese, Asian, Ainu, Guam, Eskimos and Polynesians:

The above dendrogram should not be confused with a family tree because the cranial distance between populations does not necessarily reflect the time since their ancestors diverged (though there’d be a correlation).

For example Africans and Andaman islanders have virtually no cranial distance even though they have enormous chronological distance (70,000 years since they last shared an ancestral population).

Many people think of races as huge families so they would object to grouping populations that don’t share recent ancestry. However my attitude has always been, it’s not how recently you share a common ancestor, it’s how much of a common ancestor you share.

Unless their similar morphologies evolved independently, Africans and Andaman Islanders clearly share the Negroid phenotype which thus must have pre-dated the ancient African exodus 70,000 years ago.

The White supremacists hate this because they want to claim blacks only left Africa in chains. The Afro-centrists love this because they want to believe blacks were a pioneers who spread as far as Australia.

White supremacists cite DNA to argue that Africans and Australoids are among the most genetically distant populations on the planet, so how dare African take credit for colonizing Australia, but what they don’t understand is that much of our DNA has no impact on our phenotype and serves only as a molecular clock. Any accomplished race will by definition divide into distantly related families because colonizing distant lands for long periods of time is the very definition of evolutionary success, as long as those distantly related families genetically preserve the phenotype of their common ancestor. If we only defined taxa by DNA similarity, then by definition there would be no successful races or species because as soon as you existed or dispersed long enough, neutral DNA (a mere measure of time) would redefine you as a new taxa.

IQ of Kamala Harris vs Barack Obama

Commenter Hail asked me to estimate Kamala Harris’s IQ and given her similarity to Barack Obama, I thought it would be a good idea to revisit his IQ to boot. Both are late boomer Afro-multiracial second generation immigrant lawyers from elite backgrounds who grew up to be the first non-whites on a major presidential ticket.

African Americans are 12.7% of the population, but about 10% of them do not have enough sub-Saharan ancestry (>50%) to technically qualify as black. Thus 1.27% of Americans are Afro-multiracial.

Assuming 1.27% of America’s 76 million baby boomers (some are dead) are also Afro-multiracials, that’s 965 thousand people. Now assuming the average U.S. Afro-multiracial has an IQ of 93 (half-way between the U.S. white and black means of 100 and 85 respectively; most U.S. Afro-multiracials are hybridized whites) with a standard deviation (SD) of 15, if there were a perfect correlation between IQ and power, we’d expect the two most powerful U.S. Afro-multiracials ever (Obama and if elected Harris) to have IQs 71 and 69 points above the Afro-multiracial average. But since the correlation between IQ and power is only about 0.37, their expected IQs would only be about 37% as extreme, so 26 points above the Afro-multircial mean which would put them at 119.

But it’s unlikely both Obama and Harris have the statistically expected IQ of the most powerful African Americans. To add more precision to our estimate, let’s compare their education levels to other U.S. Afro-multiracials who’ve enjoyed comparable power:

Obama’s education ( Columbia University (BA) a Harvard University (JD)  magna cum laude ) would put him at or slightly above all six members of our control group so let’s say his education is at the top one in seven level compared to other Afro-multiracial super elites. Assuming Afro-multiracial super elites have an SD of 13.94 (since they’re selected for power which correlates 0.37 with IQ, their SD would be slightly less than the typical 15), if there were a perfect correlation between IQ and education, we’d expect Obama’s IQ to be about 15 points above the Afro-multiracial super-elite mean of 119.

But in fact the correlation is much lower than perfect. In the general U.S. population (and presumably within U.S. racial groups), the correlation between IQ and education is 0.57, but to estimate the correlation among Afro-multiracial super-elites, we need to know the correlation holding power constant. Assuming a 0.37 correlation between IQ and power and a 0.5 correlation between education and power, the partial correlation between IQ and education is 0.48.

Thus, instead of being 15 IQ points smarter than the average 119 IQ Afro-multiracial super-elite, Obama would be (0.48)15 = 7 points smarter, or IQ 126.

This seems a little low for Obama given that his LSATs might have been in the 94th to 98th percentile of LSAT takers (who themselves tend to be in the top percentiles of the general population). On the other hand, Obama was a very uneven debater, and a former “CIA” guy claims that Chinese spies found Obama’s childhood IQ (as measured by the WISC) to have been 128 (somewhat lower when you adjust for old norms), so perhaps 126 is spot-on. Indeed back in 2009, Steve Sailer estimated Obama’s IQ to be 125.

What about Harris? Her education (Howard University (BA)
University of California, Hastings (JD)) puts her near the bottom of our above control group of six Afro-multiracial super-elites (17th percentile). If there were a perfect correlation between IQ and education, we’d expect her to be 13 points dumber than this group’s 119 average, but given the partial correlation of 0.48, we might guess she’s (0.48)13 points dumber, so IQ 113. This may seem a little low given her Brahman heritage on her mother’s side, but it’s consistent with estimates in the blog’s comment section and consistent with her debate performance where she came out strong with her rehearsed take-down of Joe Biden, but couldn’t adapt when ambushed by Tulsi Gabbard.

Harvard & the Presidency

There are roughly 222 million Americans old enough to have gone to Harvard. Of these, only 279,000 have actually attended Harvard. If we crudely assume that Harvard is the pinnacle of credentials, attending Harvard puts you at the top one in 796 level achievement (normalized Z score = +3).

Meanwhile of America’s 76 million baby boomers (alive or dead), only four grew up to be President of the United States (so far). If we crudely assume being President is the pinnacle of power, the Presidency puts you at the top one in 19 million level. The median U.S. president would therefore be at the one in 38 million level in power (normalized Z = +5.47).

Of the five living U.S. President, two have attended Harvard (Bush & Obama), so an achievement that is +3 Z in the general population, is only +0.27 Z among Presidents. This implies the average U.S. President is +2.73 Z in education (3 – 0.27). Considering the average U.S. president has an IQ of about 130 (+ 2 Z), this implies education is more important for achieving power than IQ (as Lion of the Blogosphere would agree).

This makes sense because education reflects not just IQ but social class and work ethic as well.

We can estimate that IQ correlates 0.37 with power (2/5.47) while education correlates 0.5 (2.73/5.47).

Professor claims so-called aliens are future humans


, , , ,

I’m a huge skeptic when it comes to people claiming to have seen aliens, but I’ve always loved the way these aliens (known as Greys) are depicted as having so many high IQ traits (large cranial capacity, extremely thin, etc). I’ve always thought they looked like the next stage of human evolution but I dismissed such thoughts as sci-fi nonsense because how could such an advanced form of humanity already exist when our species only just evolved a few hundred thousand years ago.

But what if they don’t already exist, they just appear to because they are time travelers from the future. That’s the fantastical thesis of Dr. Michael P. Masters. At first I thought this was nutty, but there are two reasons why it’s worth considering. First Dr. Masters comes across as highly intelligent and well educated on the subject of human evolution, and second, his theory has enormous explanatory power.

His theory explains:

  • why supposed aliens look like the natural extension of the last six million years of human evolution
  • why supposed aliens keep such a low profile (if they are time travelers, they probably don’t want to mess with their history because it could affect their present)
  • why supposed aliens appear despite no astronomical evidence for life on other planets (they are from our own planet, just in the future)
  • why if time travel is theoretically possible, we never see people from the future (we do, it’s just they’re from so far in the future that they’re no longer “people”)

The main problem with his theory is (1) it’s based on dubious evidence for the existence of these aliens, and (2) why would human evolution keep continuing in the same direction (bigger brains, smaller less ape-like faces, less muscle) now that we’ve largely overcome natural selection and are on the precipice of genetic engineering?

You can see Dr. Masters discuss his theory in the below video.