The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersRussian Reaction Blog
Cognitive Cliodynamics
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

elephant-brain

The FLynn Effect has not acted uniformly across the various domains of intelligence.

To put it very roughly, in the past century, the developed world has seen a two S.D. improvement on Raven’s Progressive Matrices, hardly any improvement in verbal or Backward Digit Span tests, and a one S.D. improvement in various picture arrangement and completion tasks.

This has translated to an approximately one S.D. improvement in general intelligence.

Raven’s loads heavily on visuospatial ability, which in turn is highly dependent on brain size. OTOH, verbal ability to seems to have little, if any, correlation with brain size.

Brain size increased by well more than an S.D. since the late 19th century, in line with increased in body size as a whole [see the book The Changing Body by Floud et al. for a comprehensive treatment]. However, people familiar with classical literature, with contemporary journals, magazines, and letters, etc., could be understood for dismissing this on account of it just being too incredible.

At it happens, they would be right to do so. According to one study (Henrichsen et al., 1986), which was highlighted by IQ blogger Pumpkin Person, fourteen pairs of MZ twins who had weight differentials of more than 25% at birth had their bodies and minds measured at the age of 13. The heavier twins had a 0.5 S.D. higher head circumference, a 0.5 S.D. higher performance IQ, but there was no difference in verbal IQ.

Two other bits of evidence from HBD. First, larger-brained men have a 10 IQ point advantage in visuospatial ability over women, but verbal abilities are at best equal. The Inuit and Yakuts have some of the biggest brains on the planet, more so even than their other Mongoloid cousins, but while their visuospatial abilities are legendary – early Soviet psychometrists noted the ability of the Altai to notice one missing animal in a herd of hundreds – their verbal IQs are nothing to write home about. Meanwhile, Jews dominate verbal IQ, being almost one S.D. above Whites, while having normal sized brains and unremarkable visuospatial IQ.

Apart from auxological factors, which was emphasized by Richard Lynn, performance also increases with greater training, an observation that was stressed more by James Flynn. One study (Armstrong et al., 2014) discovered a correlation between the FLynn effect on various tests, and the extent to which said tests are rule-dependent. Rule-dependent tests, in turn, benefit from retesting effects and the progressively greater emphasis on abstract thinking skills in schooling during the course of the 20th century. Raven’s maxes out on both factors, and has consequently seen the greatest increase.

Verbal skills, in contrast, benefit little if at all from greater brain size, and children in the developed world were already getting very stringently trained on it even a century ago. Even brutally so (spare the rod and spoil the child; one beaten is worth two unbeaten; etc.). OTOH, there must have been a large improvement in average verbal proficiency between, say, 1600 and 1900.

Verbal skills are much more important for economic productivity than recognizing patterns in weird shapes, ergo GDP per capita and development levels showing the highest levels of correlation precisely with verbal IQ. Incidentally, this is why I find PISA tests – which are both strongly g loaded, as well as focusing on precisely the most economically useful skills – to really be the most useful psychometric tests from a real world perspective, as opposed to Lynn & Vanhanen’s and David Becker’s laudable efforts.

Note that neither of these two factors “disprove” genetic racial differences in IQ. Within countries, especially the modern developed world, both the auxological environment and the learning environment tend to be very similar across racial groups. American Negroes, if anything, benefit from being more urban than Caucasians, and contrary to leftist rhetoric, inner city schools are typically very well financed. However, in both the US and across all other countries where studies have been conducted, including African ones, Negroes consistently place at least half an S.D. to one S.D. lower than Caucasians across pretty much all types of IQ tests.

The immigrants who came to the US in the late 19th/early 20th centuries from places like Southern Italy or Ireland were nutritionally underdeveloped (so lower scores on culture neutral but auxology-dependent tests), usually less intensely educated and certainly not in the English language (so lower verbal IQ performance), and certainly had less practice with more abstract problems. This made for a large gap with indigenous Americans, and up until the 1960s/70s, with residents of the most developed nations in general. Since then, nutritional and educational convergence has almost entirely closed those gaps.

However, precisely because our world is now much more biorealistic than in the past, with best practices filtering through to all but the most benighted places, I am skeptical of existing gaps continuing to get closed to any significant extent (even if there is still considerable room for improvement in Africa and the Indian subcontinent). For instance, Jason Richwine has noted – and gotten into trouble for it – that Mexican-Americans stop converging to White Americans norms after the second generation.

East Asians (Chinese, Koreans, Japanese) tend to have larger brains and larger visuospatial IQs than Caucasians, but similar verbal IQs. However, they modestly lag in GDP per capita (relative to what it should be), significantly lag in elite science output (again, relative to what it should be), and grossly lag in historical accomplishment (how China was not first to the Industrial Revolution must be one of the biggest puzzles of Intelligence Theory).

My guess is that this underperformance can be ascribed to greater East Asian conformism, relative to the other major races of man (Kura et al., 2015).

Let’s take an extreme case. Women do not significantly lag men in intelligence, or at least on the sort of intelligence that is useful for making discoveries. And if anything they are better – more conscientious, more diligent – at office work. And yet the achievement gap is awesome. According to Charles Murray’s calculations, women only account for about 2% of human accomplishment across most scientific or cultural domains, and this figure hasn’t budged upwards despite the appearance of feminism and affirmative action. Women are, of course, far more conformist than men, less willing to challenge the dominant paradigms, and there is good reason to think East Asians are “tilted” in a similar direction. Just look at their inventions: As Steve Sailer is wont to say, while the Indians invented the zero, the Chinese invented paper and the compass. Even in the Early Modern Age, East Asian mathematics was most developed relative to Europe in the highly non-abstract field of numerical techniques, while lagging cardinally in more theoretical fields such as calculus and number theory.

As I argued in Apollo’s Ascent, the Sinosphere was also very much hampered on account of their logographic writing systems. As anyone who has studied Mandarin can confirm, literacy is MUCH simpler to acquire with alphabetic systems, while even retaining literacy in logographic systems such as Hanzi is not trivial without constant practice. In contrast, the civilizations of the Med shifted to alphabets, beginning with the Phoenicians, as soon as literacy rates began expanding beyond the priestly castes. Possibly it was precisely East Asian conformism that preempted similar developments there (note that Korea’s Sejong the Great did introduce an alphabetic system from above in the 15th century, and for the express purpose of increasing literacy amongst the commonfolk, but the system was apparently so resistant to change that it took until the 20th century to truly catch on).

Moreover, even in the modern day US, as I pointed out, East Asians (though not South Asians!) take much less of an interest, especially relative to their IQ levels, in “out of left field” topics and communities such as rationalism and transhumanism. The usual boors will rejoinder “good for them,” but I am sure that they will not come up with anything or original either. But just to address their autistic screeching: (The Japanese researcher) Kenya Kura notes: “Among undergrads, 40% or more are Asians, but graduate students are something like 20% (depending on departments). Faculty members are well less than 10%.” Getting an undergraduate degree is the normal, handshakeworthy thing to do in modern society. Slaving away for a PhD? Not so much.

More conformism, literacy retarding writing system, no advantage in verbal IQ. And so China didn’t launch a Scientific Revolution, or an Industrial one, despite consistently having high human capital, an unusually unified and free market of 100 million+ people, vast numbers of schools, etc.

There isn’t near as much to explain about the Middle East and India. They are simply less intelligent – significantly so – than the Europeans or East Asians. They got to intensive agriculture, urbanization, and some degree of literacy – these all very much went together before the Industrial Revolution – faster than China or Europe. They made vast progress when that happened, but they ran into cognitive barriers, which were pushed back as soon as each new wave of more cold-adapted, higher IQ peoples got into the innovation game. This is the argument that Richard Hart makes in Understanding History.

I also don’t consider it at all necessary to invoke Christianity to explain European intellectual success, as Charles Murray insists on doing in Human Accomplishment. I am certainly not one of those militant atheist types, but it’s hard to deny that Christianity’s influence in late Antiquity was highly negative, helping push the Roman sphere further into obscurantism. It did play a role in conserving knowledge during the Dark Ages, and in advancing knowledge after 1100, but it’s not clear how it did that, or promoted literacy, beyond what it would have been the case under a different religion (e.g. William Harris in Ancient Literacy estimates Roman Italy’s literacy rate to have been at 10%-15% at its peak, and that was without the benefit of cheap paper). Protestantism did raise literacy way above what it would have been, due to the emphasis it placed on a personal reading of the Bible. But by the time Protestantism rolled around, Europe was already way scientifically ahead of China, not to mention all other civilization.

Finally, I don’t think Jaychick’s ideas about clannishness played a major role either. They are correct and original in their observations that countries within the Hajnal Line are indeed less corrupt and more civic-minded than those outside it, and East Asian evolved an alternate prosociality based on shame instead of guilt. These have important consequences with respect to everyday life, institutions, etc. But economic development, or innovation? Not so much. The reality is that there were plenty of very bright and creative Middle Easterners and Mediterraneans – especially Greeks and Italians – who pushed the scientific frontier forwards. Almost everything can be explained by IQ, and differential rates in the appearance of intensive agriculture, urbanization, and literacy. The two biggest factors that can’t be are the relative underperformance (relative to IQ!) of East Asians vs. everyone else, and women vs. men. Common factor there seems to be higher conformism.

Rant over. Did I miss anything?

 
• Category: Science • Tags: Economic History, Human Biodiversity, IQ 
Hide 335 CommentsLeave a Comment
335 Comments to "Cognitive Cliodynamics"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. DFH says:

    The obvious reason for female underachievment is that men greatly outnumber women at the highest levels of intelligence.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
  2. AaronB says:

    Almost everything can be explained by IQ, and differential rates in the appearance of intensive agriculture, urbanization, and literacy.

    Bah!

    It is all almost spiritual factors.

    [MORE]

    Some people will invest all their energy into developing materially and uproot, destabilize, and reorganize their entire culture to achieve material advantage – other people’s will prefer spiritual happiness, or at least a better balance.

    East Asians simply aren’t willing to become as gloomy and frustrated as the West in order to gain some material advantage – which reminds me I really need to live there!

    And the people who invest all their energy into material advantage eventually burn out and become gloomy and apathetic and self hating and try and destroy themselves or get overrun by people who invest more of their energy in spiritual happiness – so it’s a short term strategy, a few centuries at most.

    And that is is the TRUE history of the world – not this incoherent genetic nonsense.

  3. DFH says:
    @AaronB

    East Asians simply aren’t willing to become as gloomy and frustrated as the West in order to gain some material advantage

    You’ve become a parody of yourself, Aaron

    • Replies: @AaronB
  4. @DFH

    Certainly a major factor, but assuming equal IQs, an female S.D. of 13.5 vs. 15 for men (James Thompson usually uses 14), and a discovery threshold of 145, women would still account for almost a quarter of eminent figures; at a discovery threshold of 160, they would still account for ~12% of eminent figures. Whereas the actual number is just 2%. So other factors must clearly play a role.

    My pet theory is that even though female capacity to contribute to innovation has been getting progressively better throughout history – absolute conditions may be even better than for men, these days – the threshold discovery rate has also been steadily going up. The two factors have canceled each other out, resulting in zero net progress in the percentage of female eminent figures. They might even fall this century, since female access is now maxed out, whereas the problems that need to be solved will continue getting harder.

  5. AaronB says:
    @DFH

    Lol, I was kind of joking, but I see Karlin dislikes my comment, so I’ll stop.

  6. I think that the great variability between male and female IQ is also a very important factor. On the very high IQ level, there are far fewer women than men.

    Also one should not forget that China did suffer far more barbarian devastation then North-western Europe (which saw none at all after the Magyars and Vikings were tamed). Eastern Europe on the other hand was regularly devastated by warlike tribes from the steppe, who’s ways of war were infinitely more devastating then thus of western European states. Eastern Europe did not exactly develop much, before the Nomad problem wasn’t finally handled in the late 18th century (when the Crimean horde was conquered by Russia), after which the east started to catch up with the west.

    We just don’t know how a Song China would have developed, had the Jurchen and Mongols not destroyed it. Europe took over 600 years to recover from the fall of Rome after all. And if anything the Mongols were far more brutal and devastating then any of the tribes, that brought down the Roman Empire. The Manchu conquest also surpassed the religious wars of Europe by far in brutality and devastation.

    Meanwhile, the Malthusian crisis of western Europe, like the one that ended in the black death in the 14th and in the religious wars of the 17th, was not accompanied by barbarian invasions, so while population did decline, material wealth and social order did remain far more preserved, for instance opening the way for the early capitalist revolution of the post black death era.

    No matter what Pommeranz says….post Song china always had a very small part of its population living in cities. See K Dengs work on “Agrocracy” for a detailed explanation. The Chinese social and political system was developed in a way that encouraged population flow from cities into the countryside, where of course people were generally less intellectually productive. The comercial classes were also far less influential in China then in the most productive areas of western Europe (16th century Northern Italy, 17th century Netherlands and 18th century England). By 1600 around 8% of western Europeans were living in cities with over 10 000 inhabitants, vs only 4% in CHina (the numbers are not much different over the regions of China, while Western Europe had several areas of high urban concentration). By 1800 the highest rate of urbanisation in any province of China was 5,6%, while in Western Europe it was 30%.

    I would also say that the Hajnal Line and the institutions it encouraged, does play a role in economic development and might have had an impact on western European IQ.

    Sorry for my bad English.

  7. There isn’t near as much to explain about the Middle East and India. They are simply less intelligent – significantly so – than the Europeans or East Asians.

    Is there a credible estimate of Indian IQ? I am not convinced by Lynn & Vanhanen’s low-80s estimate. You have mentioned high parasitic load and malnourishment as potential factors holding the subcontinent in general back. Malnourishment in India is higher than even the average Sub-Saharan African country.

    You go on to state that you view the g-loaded PISA tests to be better guides, but India notoriously underperformed the (only) time they participated, probably for the same reason(s). Speaking of Jason Richwine, Steve Sailer on his twitter mentioned a few days ago, in response to a direct question on this very topic from an Indian, that the mean IQ of 2nd-gen Indian-Americans is something around 112 IQ, so quite close to mean Ashkenazi IQ. This would imply that ‘regression to the mean’ is quite high, and as such would throw cold water on the idea that the average Indian IQ is low on a genetic basis.

    Of course, as most people know, India has many subpopulations and many castes have extremely high endogamy, which makes determining Indian IQ so difficult, especially as most immigrants to the US are high caste(implied as Brahmin). That said, from what I understand, the same can not be said of Indians in the UK and they tend to do quite well there, despite far fewer Brahmins. Then again, some Indians on /pol/ have thrown cold water on this Brahmin = high caste theory.

    I say this in the context of recman1′s comments on UK Indians, and his focus on Brahmin’s as high caste, which, if the-above comments is anything to go by, is misleading since ‘high caste’ is not synonymous with Brahmin in a strict socio-economic sense (but more so in a cultural sense).

    Verbal skills are much more important for economic productivity than recognizing patterns in weird shapes, ergo GDP per capita and development levels showing the highest levels of correlation precisely with verbal IQ.

    This is interesting, and I’ve heard this before. Additionally, I do not remember which author – perhaps it was Murray – who once wrote that mathematical IQ is actually better correlated with verbal IQ than the other way around. In other words, someone with a verbal IQ of 130 will have a higher mathematical IQ on average than someone with a mathematical IQ of 130 will have a verbal IQ. I do not know if this is true, do you know something about this? It goes against the stereotype of “clever humanist but worthless on math”, which is why I was skeptical when I read it. It’d be interesting if true.

    My guess is that this underperformance can be ascribed to greater East Asian conformism, relative to the other major races of man (Kura et al., 2015).

    Isn’t this an old stereotype(or even a slur) repackaged in a new exterior? I’ve gone back and read some articles from ~2005 recently and it is astonishing how dismissive many Western media outlets were of the Chinese. Sure, they write, the Chinese are growing fast but [insert litany of thinly-veiled dismissive insults about 'robotic' Asians who lack innovation]. Yet as you yourself have pointed out, the Chinese have risen very fast at cutting-edge research in the academies. Their AI efforts are already world-class. This does not disprove their historical lag, but it should perhaps caution us on taking an essentialist perspective by tagging them as perpetually ‘incurious’. If that was the case, you’d expect it to remain a constant constraint and that doesn’t appear to be true, or at least far less than many thought 10-15 years ago. Thoughts?

    Also, there was plenty of Chinese innovation pre-1500 AD and one could argue that if you focus from 0 AD to 1500 AD, it is not clear that Europeans did better. We innovated in a shorter burst and as technological output accelerated, it was more tightly packed in a shorter timespan, though I will concede that the last 500 years were vastly more important than anything than came before it put together.

    However, as Kurzweil has noted, human innovation has sped up consistently over the last 10 000 years. The introduction of each technology has been shorter and shorter, which perhaps shows to a generalised pattern that makes the industrial revolution less of a unique European phenomena in the sense that “without us, it would never have happened” and more a logical end-conclusion of ever-faster innovation over the course of human history. Perhaps we were simply doing better at this particular juncture, which is why it was us, but had it begun in 1300 AD, maybe I would have written this in Mandarin.

    P.S. For what it’s worth, there are questions over whether we measure productivity adequately today. Some, like prof Diane Coyle, argue that we are underestimating it and research institutions like the Conference Board has taken in her research and the result of those models is that East Asian GDPpc is higher than it is today due to higher productivity.

    It is particularly technological productivity that is undermeasured, and that would remove a lot of this ‘underperformance’. SK has lower productivity than Spain according to the OECD, which is somewhat implausible.

  8. Sunbeam says:

    “Verbal skills are much more important for economic productivity than recognizing patterns in weird shapes, ergo GDP per capita and development levels showing the highest levels of correlation precisely with verbal IQ. ”

    Quite a statement. If true, and I’ll take your word for it, why?

    What are the mechanics of this?

    • Replies: @Echoes of History
  9. I’ll like to see if there is any correlation between Rex Jung’s temporary hyperfrontality and verbal IQ measures.

  10. (how China was not first to the Industrial Revolution must be one of the biggest puzzles of Intelligence Theory).

    Necessity is the mother of invention. It strikes me that east asia (perhaps ultimately owing to some of this conformism) has been relatively much more stable and peaceful throughout history than Europe has. Obviously there is a lot of war and empire and what have you in East Asia as there is anywhere else, but it seems to me like less overall. Asian empires had short periods of ‘senkoku’ followed by extremely long lived dynasties of unified countries.

    Europeans comparatively had short periods of unified empires but mostly existed throughout their history in a permanent state of senkoku, disunited warring states. China’s maxim from the Romance of the 3 kingdoms is “that which is long united must divide, and that which is long divided must unite” but in east asia, it seems more like “that which is briefly divided must unite, and that which is long united must divide” whereas Europe is more like “that which is briefly united must divide, that which is long divided must briefly almost unite before blowing back up”.

    The Chinese invented the cannon but they did not really develop it because they ultimately had relatively little use for it. Chinese adventures were things like invading Vietnam, where they had no problems at all blasting into the place without cannons but the issue became holding it in a high attrition jungle full of guerrillas which cannons don’t really help with. The only real threat they faced besides peasant rebellions was steppe raiders on horseback (more guerrilla and mobility warfare) and cannons don’t help with that either. The issue is the horse raiders strike where the line is weak, and then run away before you can reinforce. Cannons only slow reinforcements down even more.

    In Europe they were basically in a constant state of senkoku. Raiders hitting where the line was weak would take territory but then loose it back again a few years later, so they started building massive defensive fortifications to try to hold on to the land against raiding, and all these massive defensive fortifications (castles) required cannons to bust holes in.

    I think this crucible of nearly permanently warring states for a millennia is what necessitated a lot of the military tech advances which is what ended up driving a lot of the non-military tech advancements. Asia became kind of stagnant because it was comparatively too peaceful and stable. And their (relative) peace and stability I think we can blame on their conformism.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    , @myself
  11. @AaronB

    East Asians simply aren’t willing to become as gloomy and frustrated as the West in order to gain some material advantage – which reminds me I really need to live there!

    Please don’t.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    , @AaronB
  12. @Lars Porsena

    The Chinese invented the cannon but they did not really develop it because they ultimately had relatively little use for it. Chinese adventures were things like invading Vietnam, where they had no problems at all blasting into the place without cannons but the issue became holding it in a high attrition jungle full of guerrillas which cannons don’t really help with

    Chinese walls were built in a fashion that cannons did not seem like they could possibly defeat them, as even 20th century cannons had difficulty defeating city walls, which were made of alternating slanted hard portions to deflect and soft portions within in order to dampen surviving impact:

    We fought our way to Nanking and joined in the attack on the enemy capital in December. It was our unit which stormed the Chunghua Gate. We attacked continuously for about a week, battering the brick and earth walls with artillery, but they never collapsed. The night of December 11, men in my unit breached the wall. The morning came with most of our unit still behind us, but we were beyond the wall. Behind the gate great heaps of sandbags were piled up. We ‘cleared them away, removed the lock, and opened the gates, with a great creaking noise. We’d done it! We’d opened the fortress! All the enemy ran away, so we didn’t take any fire. The residents too were gone. When we passed beyond the fortress wall we thought we had occupied this city

    As a result, development in increasing cannon size was pretty much halted, with larger bores developed later to basically fire grapeshot-equivalents in order to try to maximize their utility against soft targets like horsemen.

    It testifies to something of the entire siege mentality of China which I hope has slowly slipped away a bit, but one historian, noted that the walls of the marketplace of Chang’an were thicker than the walls of major European capitals.

    • Replies: @DFH
  13. When it comes to Chinese innovations, there were vast differences over time, same as for European innovations.
    In the Song period (around 1000-1250) the rate of invention was 2,5 times greater than in the 500 years preceding it. It was one of the most creative periods of premodern history. Meanwhile after the Song and till around 2000 China didn’t really invent anything (with the exception of the Bristle Toothbrush). (see Joseph Needham)
    So a moderately creative period was followed by an explosion in creativity, which in turn was followed by a barren wasteland.
    Meanwhile in Europe, the creative explosion of classical Greece, was followed by the rather modest creativity of the roman period, followed by a wasteland and slow recovery. Then suddenly there was a hence unseen leap upward around 1500, surpassing anything that came before.
    Booth processes seem to correlate with GDP per capita in the areas concerned. While GDP calculations for premodern economies should be treated carefully, most calculations come to the conclusion that there was a strong leap upwards in European per capita GDP at the time of the black death, after which the per capita GDP in most of western Europe remained stably above that of the rest of the world. It was especially high in northern Italy. Later per capita GDP was the highest in the areas, with the largest scientific output. Be it the Netherlands or the UK in the 17th-18th centuries.
    Now how did it look like in China?Chinas GDP per capita was respectable during the Song, but plunged to Spanish levels under the Ming, only to reach Malthusian limits under the Qing. All of this was accompanied by low levels of urbanization and a mostly subsistence economy.
    From about the 14th century parts of the West took a different path from the rest of the world. This seems to strongly overlap with Scientific and technological progress. China on the other hand, seems to have gone into the opposite direction. And the effect on science was also the opposite one.

  14. @Hyperborean

    Eh, I think he’ll be happy with the Taoists.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    , @Hyperborean
  15. AaronB says:
    @Hyperborean

    English teacher, eh?

    I see it as my duty to expose Asians to quality white people – can’t have them thinking you’re typical :)

    • Replies: @Hyperborean
  16. AaronB says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    They will fit me like a glove!

    If I can locate their mountain huts…

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
  17. @AaronB

    You could just go to Wong Tai Sin Temple(黃大仙祠) in Hong Kong and talk to the Taoists there. Maybe you can learn to design automotive engines by feng shui principles, then move to Germany and work for Benz, so that German_Reader will be eternally plagued by your work every time he turns the ignition key.

    • LOL: Talha, AaronB
    • Replies: @Stan d Mute
  18. @Polish Perspective

    Is there a credible estimate of Indian IQ? I am not convinced by Lynn & Vanhanen’s low-80s estimate.

    We are still waiting for Jason Malloy to chime in with his promised study. But I think that low 80s are plausible, with potential to go up to low-to-mid 90s.

    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/the-puzzle-of-indian-iq-a-country-of-gypsies-and-jews/

    Speaking of Jason Richwine, Steve Sailer on his twitter mentioned a few days ago, in response to a direct question on this very topic from an Indian, that the mean IQ of 2nd-gen Indian-Americans is something around 112 IQ, so quite close to mean Ashkenazi IQ.

    Something like 50% of Indian-Americans are Brahmins IIRC, and Americans did very thorough cognitive filtering on which Indians got in.

    I know that Jason Malloy once commented that Brahmins in India DON’T have superior IQs, but since it’s just one short comment and goes against a lot of other evidence (e.g. almost all of the people who developed Indian nukes were South Indian Brahmins), plus the heterogeneity of the Brahmin caste itself, I don’t take this seriously.

    That said, from what I understand, the same can not be said of Indians in the UK and they tend to do quite well there, despite far fewer Brahmins.

    British Indians do much worse than Indian-Americans, they are at best only equal to British Whites on academic tests. Ergo for IQ tests.

    Isn’t this an old stereotype(or even a slur) repackaged in a new exterior? I’ve gone back and read some articles from ~2005 recently and it is astonishing how dismissive many Western media outlets were of the Chinese.

    Well I never did that from the very start so I think I have some credibility on the matter.

    This is from 2008, less than a year after I began blogging!: http://akarlin.com/2008/08/a-long-wait-at-the-gate-of-delusions/

    Also http://akarlin.com/2011/07/top-10-sinophobe-myths/

    Yet as you yourself have pointed out, the Chinese have risen very fast at cutting-edge research in the academies. Their AI efforts are already world-class.

    Correct.

    However, as I have also long pointed out, Japan has less elite scientific level output than the UK or Germany: http://www.unz.com/freed/affirmative-action-and-the-american-mind-if-any/#comment-2349841

    South Korea is equal to Spain (!) and Switzerland (!!!).

    Assuming China converges to somewhere between Korea’s and Japan’s level, its elite scientific output will max out at 100%-150% of the US level. Which will make it the world’s premier scientific power, but not an overwhelmingly dominant one, which is what you would expect from its demographics + average IQ.

    This ofc assumes that the US will not keep on declining due to internal demographic changes and SJWization.

    Incidentally, in the deeper past, I actually long resisted the claim that East Asians are somehow less curious and so forth. However, things like the Nature Science Index, Kura’s arguments, the data on East Asian participation in “out of left field” communities, etc. have gradually convinced me that there is something to those stereotypes.

    Though their extreme versions (e.g. Wingrove’s Chung Kuo series) remain ridiculous exaggerations.

    Also, there was plenty of Chinese innovation pre-1500 AD and one could argue that if you focus from 0 AD to 1500 AD, it is not clear that Europeans did better. We innovated in a shorter burst and as technological output accelerated, it was more tightly packed in a shorter timespan, though I will concede that the last 500 years were vastly more important than anything than came before it put together.

    Lead was very much restricted, from around 300 AD when Rome began to fall into obscurantism, to 1100 AD, which correlated to the rise of medieval scholasticism (not even the Renaissance!): https://www.unz.com/akarlin/graphing-the-dark-ages/

    Also, China’s peak during that period was very modest relative to the earlier Greek peak, to say nothing of course of post-1100 developments in Europe.

    There is also the structure of Chinese developments: Much more practical, heavily loaded towards tech (compass, paper, gunpowder, printing press), including even the basic research (didn’t bother with proofs until arrival of modern Western mathematics; but 18th century Japan independently developed advanced numerical techniques). In contrast, India (Kerala)… developed the zero.

    Perhaps we were simply doing better at this particular juncture, which is why it was us, but had it begun in 1300 AD, maybe I would have written this in Mandarin.

    I believe core Europe was already more advanced in important respects than China by 1300. By then, IIRC, they were even producing more manuscripts, despite China having the printing press.

    However, if Europe was to vanish off the face of the Earth c. 1300, I do think China would have been by far the next best candidate to reach the Industrial Revolution soonest. Maybe around 2200-2300.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    , @Twinkie
  19. @AaronB

    English teacher, eh?

    Not that old, comrade-kun.

    I see it as my duty to expose Asians to quality white people – can’t have them thinking you’re typical

    While I do make my general leanings visible occasionally, I generally try to avoid talking about topics that range within the political sphere IRL.

    I get told I am very well-mannered and courteous, so clearly their impression of me can’t be all bad (well considering that it is Mainland Chinese perhaps the bar is not too high…)

    Online I don’t care quite as much about decorum (which is mainly here at UR as I don’t comment at any other blog I read), although I am sure I am not the worst offender.

  20. @Daniel Chieh

    I was thinking about normal people, our dearest friend seems quite fond of proselytising…

    • LOL: Daniel Chieh
  21. DFH says:
    @Polish Perspective

    That said, from what I understand, the same can not be said of Indians in the UK and they tend to do quite well there, despite far fewer Brahmins

    Not really

  22. DFH says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    Chinese walls were built in a fashion that cannons did not seem like they could possibly defeat them, as even 20th century cannons had difficulty defeating city walls, which were made of alternating slanted hard portions to deflect and soft portions within in order to dampen surviving impact:

    This doesn’t explain why they lagged behind in shipborne cannons, which were by far the most important European technological advantage.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
  23. @DFH

    The war junks could beat the wokou, there really wasn’t anyone else to shoot at. For that part, the Ming Dynasty after the Yongle Emperor stopped developing the navy(the largest at the time) as a whole as a Neoconfucian faction won out and aimed to shut out the world.

    • Replies: @Talha
    , @Lars Porsena
  24. Talha says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    Neoconfucian faction won out

    Frickin’ Neocons – always screwing things up – bastards!

    Peace.

  25. @Anatoly Karlin

    This is anecdotal, but based on my experience in India working-class people are much dumber than their equivalents in the West.

    Carpenters will for instance simply run out of nails on the job and expect you to provide them with more nails.

    Hotel employees misunderstand very simple instructions, and not just in English. Instructions given in native dialects are also misunderstood. Bizarre things like asking for three chairs to be brought up to the room and ending up with ten chairs and a bunch of soda pop.

    There are electricians who don’t even know the difference between single-phase and three-phase and have never heard of grounding.

    The quality of welding is abysmal and would be rejected by quality control in any Western country.

    The emigration of so many talented Indians to the West is also a very serious problem, and something which the Indian government irrationally continues to insist on as part of its foreign policy. Indians are perversely proud that some of their most talented sons are now employed as coolie CEOs of M$FT and Goolag instead of lending their talents to their own country.

    The achievements, or lack thereof, of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited and the Defence Research and Development Organization are embarrassing. The Tejas (light fighter) and Arjun (main battle tank) projects are fiascos. Indian space program appears to be a rare bright spot.

    Now granted India is still a very poor country and has problems with illiteracy (only Kerala has reached 100% primary school enrollment), malnutrition, and certainly pathogen burden as well. There wasn’t much to boast about in China 30 years ago either (the delusions of Godfree Roberts aside).

  26. @Daniel Chieh

    A lack of necessity. Euros actually developed those naval cannons because they needed them to survive each other. I think the terrain helped too. The southeast asians have jungle, the japanese and southeast islanders have the sea, the koreans have a mountain range cutting off their peninsula. There was a lot of tendency toward stable isolationism in east asia, which is probably a good thing at least until it causes you to fall technologically too far behind barbarians that you can’t defend yourself.

    If only the Japanese had gone into a Viking phase 1000 years earlier China would probably have ended up having to develop naval cannons first.

  27. @Thorfinnsson

    Indian space program appears to be a rare bright spot.

    Indian accomplishment just seems to be so ridiculously loaded on the coolest, most abstract and/or impractical domains.

    The sort of thing Brahmin big brain nibbas would enjoy doing.

    Invention of the zero. Number theory. Beautiful metaphysics systems. Developed nukes as a Third World poorhouse. Successful space program.

    But also crap welding. And designated shitting streets, at least until Modi started to tidy that up.

    The Chinese seem to be the polar opposite.

    • Agree: AaronB
    • Replies: @Philip Owen
    , @Dmitry
  28. @Thorfinnsson

    Chinese firms manage to buy peanuts in India, clean them in China and undercut, with better quality, the original Indian growers in Russia. Russia has banned Indian peanuts for years at a time because of fungal disease. I know this from direct involvement. As go peanuts so goes much other Indian produce and manufactures. Indian traders ask me to sell curry powder and mangoes to Russia. They seem to have no cultural awareness. They also expect the Russian side to pay for everything and intermediates like me to work for nothing. There are reasons why most countries have not seen the demands of India in Free Trade Deals as worth the exposure to Indian trade goods. Russia buys some guar gum and bentonite both used in drilling muds but inconsequential food and goods.

  29. @Philip Owen

    Indian traders ask me to sell curry powder and mangoes to Russia. They seem to have no cultural awareness.

    Do Russians dislike mangos?

    • Replies: @Philip Owen
  30. @Anatoly Karlin

    I supplied Russian components for fibre optic gyros to the Indian space program. The weapons control bureaucracy was formidable as they shipped via the UK. (Russian and Indian commercial paper work is not compatible). Letters of credit used in each country are not compatible. BRICS is an hysterical joke so far as non weapons trade between India and Russia are concerned. The Indian national oil company OGNC was ripped off in a massive fraud by Russians (with state backing) the first time they tried investing. Mind you, being too mean to pay for consultancy, they did not know simple things such as Russia taxes oil selling for more than $35 a barrel at over 90% give or take a regional tax break to drill above the Arctic Circle. Serve the lazy, greedy fools right.

  31. @Unknown128

    Sorry for my bad English.

    You must be kidding. Your English is very good (better than mine for sure) and your comment above is very informative. Thank you.

  32. @Daniel Chieh

    Someone unprepared to invest to promote mangoes is never going to find out. I will guess yes. They are quite bland. Mango pulp can be sold as a food additive but quality … I don’t want to spend a year on the project without pay and be let down by failure to meet food standards.

    Engineered parts for cars have the same problems.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
  33. @Philip Owen

    Indian traders ask me to sell curry powder and mangoes to Russia. They seem to have no cultural awareness.

    Well, they have at least one loyal customer here. I stock up at Индийские Специи three or four times a year.

    And while not many other Russians need garam masala, mangoes really are quite popular here, I think.

  34. @Philip Owen

    Indian traders ask me to sell curry powder and mangoes to Russia. They seem to have no cultural awareness.

    This is another odd thing about Indians. I’ve never met more insular people. Civilizationally, they’re completely self-absorbed. They have less curiosity about other cultures, religions, and races than any other group of (intelligent) people I’ve ever encountered.

    In fact if I understand their religions correctly, there was even some sort of taboo about venturing outside of India itself. The Indian Ocean was something you weren’t supposed to venture out into.

    You can see this in their diaspora as well. Racially speaking they’re a lot more similar to whites than Northeast Asians. But Northeast Asians in white countries adopt white names (even when simply travelling on business), date whites, don’t wear traditional costumes, happily enjoy white foods, etc.

    • Replies: @AP
    , @Anon
    , @Anon
  35. @Unknown128

    Also one should not forget that China did suffer far more barbarian devastation then North-western Europe (which saw none at all after the Magyars and Vikings were tamed).

    E.L. Jones makes this point in The European Miracle. More capital in China was destroyed during nomad invasions than in Europe.

    Of course, one aspect of this is just China’s plain back luck in being a giant plane abutting the Eurasian steppe, which could masses of steppe cavalry on home soil. Largest plain in Europe west of the Wild Fields is in Hungary, which, however, is relatively small and can only support 1-2 tyumens. Main reason the Mongols decided to call off their invasion.

    Still, while acknowledging that the nomads did nothing good for China, I don’t really buy the idea that they explain why Europe “won” instead of China. Nomad dynasties inevitably became Sinicized; populations bounced back; the Confucian bureaucracy seems to have been remarkably resilient, and provided continuity of governance. And of course Japan did not have that problem, but in many respects followed in China’s footsteps (self-imposed isolation; improvement over innovation).

  36. BlackFlag says:

    Where does mathematical ability fit? Does it fall under spatial or verbal? I would imagine this aspect of intelligence to be the most important one.

    Nonconformity is overrated. Scientific/technogical discoveries are driven by people obsessed with figuring out how something works. They mull over it all hours of the day. The key word is *passion.* You can also call it intelectual curiosity though at the extremes required for innovation it is intelectual obsession.
    It’s probably maladaptive. Just think, what benefit did Mendel get for doing his plant experiments? Sure, some discoverers make it big but material rewards are rarely the key driver. Think Nikola Tesla. Put another way, Asians are more practical.

    • Agree: AaronB
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
  37. AP says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    In terms of cultural assimilation, Indians are the least assimilated of all ethnic groups in the USA:

    https://www.manhattan-institute.org/pdf/cr_59.pdf

    (scroll down to page 6)

  38. @AaronB

    This is a funny comment. Its down right hilarious! As someone who lived for a decade in the East Asian countries, I can tell you that they are the most materialistic people on the planet, way more than most Americans. You see, I don’t give a rat’s ass what people believe as long as they don’t keep me from doing what I want with my own life.

    You know, people use the word “spritual” a lot and I still have no idea WTF they mean by it. The only thing I can come up with is that “spritual” is just a state of mind, nothing more.

    You know, there is the concept that the human personality is not an integrated whole, but rather a system of subselves. Eric Berne was the first to talk about this with his theory of “ego states”. Later, there are others to come up with thier own variants of this concept. Julian Jaynes bicameral mind theory is a specific variant of this concept. By his theory, reliigious belief in modern humans is a vestigial remnent of the bicameral mind. I see no reason to reject this explanation out of hand.

    • Replies: @utu
    , @Daniel Chieh
    , @AaronB
  39. Dmitry says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    The Chinese seem to be the polar opposite.

    Although, India and China can perhaps both be noted for their desire for excellent cuisine, and abstention from the international football tournaments.

  40. Dmitry says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    the Confucian bureaucracy seems to have been remarkably resilient, and provided continuity of governance. And of course Japan did not have that problem, but in many respects followed in China’s footsteps (self-imposed isolation; improvement over innovation).

    A modern divergence – between Japan and China – emerges in choice whether to modernize or not, in response to external threats, in the 19th century.

    Japan successfully modernizes, and as a result of intentional decisions of its political elite in the middle of 19th century. China, takes a different path, and in fact modernization attempts resisted above all from its rulers, who protested, for example, the introduction of railway. The differences are perhaps first exposed to observers of the First Sino-Japanese War, and another 10 years of modernization, and Japan has defeated the Russian Empire, and which result has amazed the world.

    The question why the two countries (or their elites) consciously choose such different paths in this era, is interesting.

  41. utu says:

    This has translated to an approximately one S.D. improvement in general intelligence.

    The diffrent rates of Flynn effects on verbal and Raven matrices imply that ‘general intelligence’ may not exist as a single component (factor), i.e., a scalar quantity. Factorization of the same battery of tests now and 40 years ago would yield two different g factors that would not be mutually parallel, meaning that another factor, let’s call it s orthogonal to g, must be introduced. At this point it must be admitted that the church erected by Spearman and refurbished with new mathematical facade by Jensen is crumbling. Instead of scalar ‘general intelligence’ we have a 2-D vector in space spanned by two orthogonal vectors g and s and the Flynn effect consists of rotation of the ‘general intelligence vector’ in this space and also in change of its absolute magnitude. It is a significant departure form the dogma of Spearman. Further consequence is that each orthogonal component of the ‘general intelligence vector’ may have different heritability, however this is of secondary importance as the heritability tests have very poor repeatability.

    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond
  42. utu says:
    @Abelard Lindsey

    I can tell you that they are the most materialistic people on the planet, way more than most Americans.

    Absolutely. Middle and upper middle class Indians are dreadfully materialistic to the point of disgusting. Chinese are much more guarded and circumspect so they do not appear as greedy as Indians. This also may explain observed lower inventiveness of Asians. I would attribute it to different relation to abstraction which in the West is related to Platonic forms and Christian transcendence. In the West we know that we don’t know and that there is more out there which objectively exists and we can reach it by means of our effort which is independent of some mumbo jumbo good mood of some ghosts of our ancestors that need to be bribed with offerings. Fathers of the Church were obsessed with free will and fortunately this propagated to out culture though Calvinism in its most primitive forms was a step back towards mumbo jumbo.

  43. Spandrell says: • Website

    Only foreigners complain about Chinese writing. Yes, it’s hard to learn. But then you learn it, and it’s done. It doesn’t affect your brain.

    Japan has had phonetic writing forever now. Koreans have had phonetic writing for a while. Now it’s the only one they got. Didn’t make them smarter or more innovative.

    Asians are just like that. Practical, authoritarian people.

  44. songbird says:
    @Spandrell

    I’ve been wondering about the various writing systems of East Asia, particularly China’s, but I don’t know really anything about it.

    One thought had occurred to me, perhaps there’s a formal quality to it, that means even when you go phonetic it has to (for practical purposes) correspond to an already existing logograph. I assume there are exceptions for technology, but it might be harder to coin silly political words, like “racist.” Oh, don’t get me wrong – I’d be surprised if “racist” did not exist, but other, even more ridiculous terms like homophobe or transphobe, cis-gendered, etc. probably can’t exist past a threshold, and so can’t take root.

    Maybe, a word coined in Pinyin would naturally be seen as foreign.

    All that is pure ignorant theory. The Chinese, Koreans, and probably the Japanese have clearly all had crazy ideas at times, but maybe they still have a certain innate protection, from certain crazy ideas.

    Conversely, English could possibly be the easiest language to have crazy ideas in. It has the largest vocabulary, I think. Easier grammar than many other languages. Spelling is bad, but that is easily fixed nowadays by spellcheck. When your nouns all have genders, is it as easy to question gender, as when they have no gender? Probably not.

    • Replies: @Spandrell
    , @Anatoly Karlin
  45. Spandrell says: • Website
    @songbird

    Languages don’t have vocabularies. People do. English just happens to have more speakers who engage in a variety of scientific endeavors so the words used in English texts are on average more varied than others.

    And yes, English as a semi-isolating grammar language makes it somewhat easier to adopt foreign words. But much of that it’s culture. English speakers just have a culture of liberal pedantry where foreign words aren’t rejected as being weird.

    Korean and Japanese have loads of foreign words in them, mostly English these days. Hasn’t made them that more creative. Mainland China has a habit of translating everything, which the language allows for. Taiwanese in contrast just use English words for many new concepts. Are Taiwanese more innovative? No.

    Let nobody be fooled: language is culture. It changes when required. Language determinism is yet another liberal theory to avoid dealing with HBD. That’s all there is to it.

  46. Spandrell says: • Website

    For what it’s worth, Japanese writing is much more of a pain in the ass than Chinese. Way more. It’s irregular and arbitrary and just plain bad.
    Japan didn’t even have a standard system until 1900!

    Are the Japanese any less smart and scientific minded than the Chinese?

    • Replies: @Abelard Lindsey
  47. Excal says:

    … it’s hard to deny that Christianity’s influence in late Antiquity was highly negative, helping push the Roman sphere further into obscurantism. It did play a role in conserving knowledge during the Dark Ages, and in advancing knowledge after 1100, but it’s not clear how it did that, or promoted literacy, beyond what it would have been the case under a different religion …

    Mohammed and Charlemagne Revisited: The History of a Controversy, by Emmet Scott, offers an explanation.

  48. songbird says:
    @Polish Perspective

    Based on acquaintances, I can easily believe 112 for Jews, 105-106 for NE Asians, but I can’t believe 112 for US Indians, and I believe immigration here makes them more selected than in India.

    Two provisions: I did not know many growing up, (the number has since wildly exploded), and I don’t live near Silicon Valley.

    By my observation alone, ave. US dot-Indians maybe 100. Many work in convenience or liquor stores, which seems to give the lie to the idea that they are here based on skills. First generation, (at least) has more stable marriages than whites in general, not sure about compared to white immigrants. Horribly, tribal, compared to most other groups. Most of their women are blah to frumpy. Exceptions rare, though notable.

    I wouldn’t mind living next to Indians, but still it is obvious they are sharpening their knives politically, and would gut any European country, the whole continent, without one iota of shame, if it meant bringing in more Indians. Same for the US, or any other Western country.

    I recently saw a travel commercial for India. It seemed to be targeted toward whites and began with an Indian bookseller in Rome. While it did have two white children in it, I thought that was a lot of effrontery – a wise Indian in the Eternal City of Europe, spreading his knowledge to Europeans, when selling to your own country as a tourist destination to Europeans – which you would not see from any other people, even Jews.

    A pity, because I don’t believe the average Indian in India is anywhere as malignant as the average African. Many even have a certain goofy charm and optimism about their country, but they are Malthusian people – tribalistically Malthusian. And the tribal ones ruin any practical possibility of getting along with the others.

    Is there any reason to suppose native Indian average is any greater than MENA countries? I don’t believe so. Maybe, 90 in ideal conditions. Can they achieve this in their own country? I don’t know.

    • Replies: @utu
  49. utu says:
    @songbird

    Based on acquaintances, I can easily believe 112 for Jews, 105-106 for NE Asians, but I can’t believe 112 for US Indians

    Did you test your acquaintances or did they tell you their scores? Does “I can easily believe” mean you are credulous? Or you are not really thoughtful when expressing yourself?

    • Replies: @Hyperborean
    , @songbird
  50. Bliss says:

    East Asians (Chinese, Koreans, Japanese) tend to have larger brains and larger visuospatial IQs than Caucasians

    So how come their higher visuospatial IQ does not make them better drivers?

    http://www.apa.org/monitor/apr04/cognitive.aspx

    Overall, they found a significant correlation between the cognitive indicators and driving skill. Visuospatial skills–like those that would be used to accurately position and maneuver a car or judge distances–had the highest correlation.

    It takes superior visuospatial skills to loop a basketball into a hoop, catch a long pass on the run, hit a curve ball with a baseball bat, bicycle kick a soccer ball etc. Guess which race is the best at doing all that?

    People of african ancestry also make good drivers, pilots, space shuttle commanders etc

  51. @utu

    Does “I can easily believe” mean you are credulous? Or you are not really thoughtful when expressing yourself?

    Presumably he means ‘the Jewish and North-East Asian scores sound reasonable, while the Indian scores do not’.

    Absolute literalness is not always useful when interpreting statements, ex. if someone says ‘I am afraid that [insert some issue]…’ they are not literally afraid but merely wish to express their apologies.

    • Replies: @utu
  52. @Bliss

    So how come their higher visuospatial IQ does not make them better drivers?

    Aren’t you assuming that the car drivers care about the people outside? It is hard to be a ‘good driver’ if one doesn’t care in the first place.

  53. @songbird

    I assume there are exceptions for technology, but it might be harder to coin silly political words, like “racist.”

    Commenter Daniel Chieh has an interesting theory about this: http://www.unz.com/isteve/at-what-age-to-teach-foreign-languages-in-schools/#comment-2323390

  54. @Spandrell

    Only foreigners complain about Chinese writing. Yes, it’s hard to learn. But then you learn it, and it’s done. It doesn’t affect your brain.

    I am not saying that it affects the brain (too deeply, anyway).

    However, it seems pretty clear acquiring literacy, especially truly fluent literacy, is far, far harder with Chinese than with alphabetic languages. There is a good reason why pretty much everyone west of the Himalayas transitioned to that when literacy began to spread beyond a narrow priestly caste, which happened first in Phoenicia and then Greece.

    In alphabetic languages, you can go to school for four years and come out literate – or at least able to read most things and sign your name, if not write complex essays. With Chinese, you will forget most of the characters not relevant to your job, resulting in a thing one author calls “fish literacy.” Good for doing your job as an urban fishmonger, not enough for buying educational treatises on how to do fishing more effectively (the sort of thing even fairly ordinary Englishmen were doing from the 17th century).

    So in my view, with China, it was conformism (which is bad enough for progress by itself) feeding into a specific form of cultural conservatism, namely sticking with a logographic script (which is thrice bad for progress, as it greatly constrains general literacy in pre-modern societies where writing/reading is not a ubiquitous activity), which moreover possibly has some conformism-reinforcing effects of its own (as Danial Chieh has argued, though I’m not sure I buy it 100%).

  55. utu says:
    @Hyperborean

    He used specific numbers 112 and 105-106 so I asked a specific question. Did he mean that his Jewish acquaintances (how many) seems to be smarter than his Asian acquaintances (how many)? Or did the differences in their smartness really felt like 6-7 points? How does 6-7 points feel? The reason I am asking because I think the guy is careless and at the same time he is cementing a meme which might be right or wrong.

    Actually you can kind of solve the problem exactly w/o making measurements under assumption that distribution is normal and you know its standard deviation. Let suppose your own IQ score is X and you met n random Jews who were definitively smarter than you and m random Jews who were definitively less smart than you. From values of n and m you could estimate the mean of Jewish IQ score providing that m+n is large and that the sample of Jews was truly random and proving that you can be objective when judging whether somebody is smarter than you or not.

  56. utu says:
    @Bliss

    It takes superior visuospatial skills to [...] catch a long pass on the run [...]. Guess which race is the best at doing all that?

    Dogs.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
  57. @utu

    He used specific numbers 112 and 105-106 so I asked a specific question.

    But he was using other people’s numbers, right? So probably it fell within a larger range that he would have accepted.

    But I agree with you that it would be good if he elaborated a bit more on his thought process.

  58. Anonymous[381] • Disclaimer says:

    “Why Chinese Is So Damn Hard”

    http://pinyin.info/readings/texts/moser.html

    The problem of reading is often a touchy one for those in the China field. How many of us would dare stand up in front of a group of colleagues and read a randomly-selected passage out loud? Yet inferiority complexes or fear of losing face causes many teachers and students to become unwitting cooperators in a kind of conspiracy of silence wherein everyone pretends that after four years of Chinese the diligent student should be whizzing through anything from Confucius to Lu Xun, pausing only occasionally to look up some pesky low-frequency character (in their Chinese-Chinese dictionary, of course). Others, of course, are more honest about the difficulties. The other day one of my fellow graduate students, someone who has been studying Chinese for ten years or more, said to me “My research is really hampered by the fact that I still just can’t read Chinese. It takes me hours to get through two or three pages, and I can’t skim to save my life.” This would be an astonishing admission for a tenth-year student of, say, French literature, yet it is a comment I hear all the time among my peers (at least in those unguarded moments when one has had a few too many Tsingtao beers and has begun to lament how slowly work on the thesis is coming).

    A teacher of mine once told me of a game he and a colleague would sometimes play: The contest involved pulling a book at random from the shelves of the Chinese section of the Asia Library and then seeing who could be the first to figure out what the book was about. Anyone who has spent time working in an East Asia collection can verify that this can indeed be a difficult enough task — never mind reading the book in question. This state of affairs is very disheartening for the student who is impatient to begin feasting on the vast riches of Chinese literature, but must subsist on a bland diet of canned handouts, textbook examples, and carefully edited appetizers for the first few years.

    The comparison with learning the usual western languages is striking. After about a year of studying French, I was able to read a lot. I went through the usual kinds of novels — La nausée by Sartre, Voltaire’s Candide, L’étranger by Camus — plus countless newspapers, magazines, comic books, etc. It was a lot of work but fairly painless; all I really needed was a good dictionary and a battered French grammar book I got at a garage sale.

    This kind of “sink or swim” approach just doesn’t work in Chinese. At the end of three years of learning Chinese, I hadn’t yet read a single complete novel. I found it just too hard, impossibly slow, and unrewarding. Newspapers, too, were still too daunting. I couldn’t read an article without looking up about every tenth character, and it was not uncommon for me to scan the front page of the People’s Daily and not be able to completely decipher a single headline. Someone at that time suggested I read The Dream of the Red Chamber and gave me a nice three-volume edition. I just have to laugh. It still sits on my shelf like a fat, smug Buddha, only the first twenty or so pages filled with scribbled definitions and question marks, the rest crisp and virgin. After six years of studying Chinese, I’m still not at a level where I can actually read it without an English translation to consult. (By “read it”, I mean, of course, “read it for pleasure”. I suppose if someone put a gun to my head and a dictionary in my hand, I could get through it.) Simply diving into the vast pool of Chinese in the beginning is not only foolhardy, it can even be counterproductive. As George Kennedy writes, “The difficulty of memorizing a Chinese ideograph as compared with the difficulty of learning a new word in a European language, is such that a rigid economy of mental effort is imperative.”6 This is, if anything, an understatement. With the risk of drowning so great, the student is better advised to spend more time in the shallow end treading water before heading toward the deep end.

    Whereas modern Mandarin is merely perversely hard, classical Chinese is deliberately impossible. Here’s a secret that sinologists won’t tell you: A passage in classical Chinese can be understood only if you already know what the passage says in the first place. This is because classical Chinese really consists of several centuries of esoteric anecdotes and in-jokes written in a kind of terse, miserly code for dissemination among a small, elite group of intellectually-inbred bookworms who already knew the whole literature backwards and forwards, anyway. An uninitiated westerner can no more be expected to understand such writing than Confucius himself, if transported to the present, could understand the entries in the “personal” section of the classified ads that say things like: “Hndsm. SWGM, 24, 160, sks BGM or WGM for gentle S&M, mod. bndg., some lthr., twosm or threesm ok, have own equip., wheels, 988-8752 lv. mssg. on ans. mach., no weirdos please.”

  59. utu says:

    Karlin’s Theory of Almost Everything

    Almost everything can be explained by IQ, and differential rates in the appearance of intensive agriculture, urbanization, and literacy. The two biggest factors that can’t be are the relative underperformance (relative to IQ!) of East Asians vs. everyone else, and women vs. men.

    Since women and East Asians constitute about 60% of the world population the almost everything is under 40%. Karlin’s theory of almost everything is not even 50% theory.

    The slight of hand was to use PISA instead of IQ which suppose to correlated better with GDP than IQ, right? So with IQ the ‘almost’ gets even smaller than 40%.

    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
  60. @Anatoly Karlin

    The main fault of the Nomads in China was to interrupt its continuous advancement and most importantly, by destroying the Song Dynasty.

    The Song were unique in Chinese history for being far more commercial and Urban then most, it was also the most naval oriented dynasty. We see isolation and hostility to all things outside start under the Ming, which might have been partially a reaction to the Mongol devastation and things that were seen as failures of the previous (Song) dynasty. Just as the Song reacted to what it perceived to have been the failures of the militarist Tang, by horribly weakening the military, so did the Ming react to the failures of the Song, by returning to a peasant focused economic and social order. The founder of the Dynasty Hongwu wrote as much in his will…that largely dictated the policy of his successors. The attempts of Yongle to go against it were met with widespread hostility from the bureaucratic elite. China never became as wealthy as it was by 1100 till around 1990, I wouldnt say this is an unimportant factor. Also several technologies were forgotten and bearly anything new was invented. Romes decline and fall also shows how barbarian invasions can stop progress in the west for centuries.

    As for Japan, it was culturally bound to China and not really able to start any scientific revolution on its own.

    As I said above, between 1250 and about 2000 China barely made a single invention, while previously it made hundreds. Had Europe been devastated by Nomads and lost half of its population by 1500, do you think that the Industrial revolution would have still occurred around 1800?

    The large disparity between eastern Europe and the west (with the east barely inventing anything till 1800) shows how much of a role barbarian neighbors play and how lucky Europe was to have a set of “just war” traditions to limit the destructive capacities of warfare between Europeans. I would say that the Mongol invasion of Russia or China caused more (%) damage, then all the wars between Europeans from 1200 to 1900 combined (including the religious wars of the 17th century.)

    • Replies: @Alliumnsk
  61. Phille says:

    I am somewhat dismayed that you scooped my brilliant theory that visuo-spatial-mathematical IQ depends on brain size while handling of sequences does not, and that this explains asian underperformance, jewish brain size and the flynn effect, as well as some male-female differences.

    But I think I can add a few thoughts: The handling of sequences as the second factor of intelligence seems to depend on dendritic growth or the ability to create synapses quickly. The jewish genetic diseases indicate that boosting this ability is the main factor behind their high verbal IQ. I also assume that they repurposed part of the spatial processing cortex to handle more high level patterns. So they basically shuffled IQ points from visuo-spatial to mathematical IQ without increasing brain size.

    Now, the interesting thing about synapses is that there are lateral synapses, that according to some theories are necessary for sequence learning, and top-down synapses, which might be necessary for creating grand theories that unify many lower level facts. To me it is pretty clear that this is what Ashkenazim excel at. Coming up with just-so-stories. Sometimes correct, sometimes not, but often brilliant. It also seems to me that the European advantage over Asians might be along the same dimension. So verbal IQ might just correlate highly with GDP because it correlates with this ability of high-level conceptual thinking made possible by the ability to quickly create top-down synapses.

    This would be an alternative explanation to conformity, though the male-female gap doesn’t drop out of it as naturally.

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @ussr andy
  62. Spandrell says: • Website
    @Anatoly Karlin

    But acquiring literacy is not hard for children. It takes time, of course, but no way as much as often implied. The script is systematic in many ways, once you got 500 down the rest can be deduced easily.

    It is excruciating for adults, which is why foreigners complain so much. But that does not reflect real feelings on the ground, which is what matter.

    Agreed on conformism, but again that’s in their blood. Hangul can be learned in a week but it hasn’t made Koreans any more drone-like.

    By the way most texts found in Han dynasty tombs show a semi phonetic system, with generic characters being used for their sound value in many places. That didn’t stick.

  63. “I am certainly not one of those militant atheist types, but it’s hard to deny that Christianity’s influence in late Antiquity was highly negative, helping push the Roman sphere further into obscurantism.”

    Ok but by how much? This sounds very similar to the atheist larping that says “Christianity held the west back 1000 years”. Was Christianity the reason the Roman(Western) empire collapsed?

  64. Alliumnsk says:
    @Spandrell

    Yes it does affect your brain.
    Japanese and Chinese themselves now often forget how to draw some symbols, because often they type it on computer which does it for them. They are able to recognize symbol visually but can’t handwrite it.
    As for Japanese having phonetic writing, it was never meant to displace kanji (except for little children). Even worse, Japanese has a lot of homophones which require kanji to tell them apart. Yes, English has similar problem too but it pales in comparison to Japanese.
    Korean phonetic writing gained widespread usage only in 20th century.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  65. Alliumnsk says:
    @Unknown128

    I agree about devastation by Mongols, but then… Mongols didn’t raze India and Egypt. But we don’t see major difference compared to the nearby countries where Mongols did invade.

    • Replies: @Unknown128
  66. @BlackFlag

    The saddest thing is that being a great composer or musician is probably maladaptive, too. Some better than average musical ability is probably adaptive.

    • Replies: @BlackFlag
    , @Not Raul
  67. @Alliumnsk

    Mongols did raze India in a way…as did Turks and Pushtuns before them. India was raided so often from the steppe, that it might have lost 80 million people in these raids and invasions.

    Also India has a naturally lower IQ. It is Chinas underperformance, that needs to be explained. One can see a vast difference between pre and postmongol china, booth in innovation and GDP per capita (which I think correlate strongly, no use having a vast rural subsistence population really). Still when it comes to scientific output, the less raided south of India did produce substantially more than the more raided north. One should not forget that western Europe was just about the only large part of civilized Eurasia, that was not frequently raided by barbarians.

    As for the Islamic world……One should not forget that by 1800 the population in most of the middle east was about the same as at year 1…while the population of Europe, China and even India grew strongly. Islam brought the Nomad into power there, leading to frequent subsequent nomad invasions and clan wars, which kept population down. Also Egypt did become the center of Islamic learning for a while, Cairo replacing Baghdad…but one should not forget that it was a country of a mere 4-5 million and was ruled by an extremely chaotic mamluk elite, which spent much of its free time behaving as if they were looting a conquered enemy country.

    Also the Mongols are just the strongest expression of a far more larger phenomena.

    On average civilized states wage wars in a milder and less destructive way then barbarians do. This is especially true for Europeans, when they waged war amongst themselves from the middle ages till WW2.

    Among barbarians the Turanian/Altaic steppe nomads stand out for waging war in a particularly devastating way, which is why their invasions, be it into the middle east, or Europe or India or China were recorded as being uniquely destructive. Now once said nomads convert to Islam, they become on average less destructive then in their Tengri/Pagan ancestors, but still show a marked brutality. European interstate wars on the other hand were probably more beneficial in the long term. They caused relatively little destruction, while at the same time encouraging innovation trough interstate competition.

  68. how China was not first to the Industrial Revolution must be one of the biggest puzzles of Intelligence Theory

    There’s no such thing as an ‘Industrial Revolution’, it’s a moronic Anglo meme. (Gott strafe England.)

    According to Charles Murray’s calculations, women only account for about 2% of human accomplishment across most scientific or cultural domains, and this figure hasn’t budged upwards despite the appearance of feminism and affirmative action. Women are, of course, far more conformist than men, less willing to challenge the dominant paradigms, and there is good reason to think East Asians are “tilted” in a similar direction.

    You don’t need to ‘challenge dominant paradigms’ to invent stuff. Women don’t invent for the same reason they don’t do Super Mario speedruns: both activities require a level of autism to an extreme intensity that women don’t have.

    As anyone who has studied Mandarin can confirm, literacy is MUCH simpler to acquire with alphabetic systems

    I studied Mandarin and I have a basic proficiency. I do not confirm. Reading logographic Chinese is significantly easier than reading pinyin. (Pinyin Chinese is like a phonetic English except without spaces or punctuation; i.e., a nightmare.)

    The Chinese knew of alphabetic writing systems since very ancient times and in fact used them for their non-Chinese official languages. They reason they keep using a logographic system is not stupidity or masochism. It’s simply easier to use for their language.

    • Replies: @DFH
    , @Anon
  69. notanon says:

    haven’t read the comments yet so may have already been mentioned but…

    Finally, I don’t think Jaychick’s ideas about clannishness played a major role either…

    The two biggest factors that can’t be are the relative underperformance (relative to IQ!) of East Asians vs. everyone else, and women vs. men. Common factor there seems to be higher conformism.

    so the question then would be does reduced clannishness reduce conformism?

  70. notanon says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    if innovation is a combination of brains + wildness

    (where wildness = anti-conformism in your formulation)

    then females should have less wildness for “sperm is cheap, eggs are expensive” reasons

  71. @Bliss

    People of african ancestry also make good drivers

    Sure:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate#/media/File:Road_traffic_accidents_world_map_-_Death_-_WHO2012.svg

    pilots,

    Totally:

    Jet hull loss rates by region of operator (per millions departures)
    REGION 2012- 2016
    Africa 2.21
    Asia Pacific 0.48
    Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) 1.17
    Europe 0.14
    Latin America and the Caribbean 0.53
    Middle East and North Africa 0.74
    North America 0.22
    North Asia 0.00​

    space shuttle commanders

    no doubt about that:

    “Bliss” a.k.a. “the southward-pointing compass”.

  72. @Anatoly Karlin

    However, it seems pretty clear acquiring literacy, especially truly fluent literacy, is far, far harder with Chinese than with alphabetic languages.

    This has nothing to do with the writing system. Literate Chinese is just a very complex and huge language in general, because they rolled in various dialects, sociolects and classical languages into one huge (mostly unified) thing.

    Imagine having to learn Spanish, Italian and Classical Latin at the same time, with the whole result called ‘Romance’.

    That’s kinda what Mandarin is like.

    Chinese kids still have to learn (and pass tests on!) their ancient classical language. Europe ditched Latin a long, long time ago.

  73. @utu

    that you can be objective when judging whether somebody is smarter than you or not.

    I think that is the crux of the problem! In my case for example, n is always equal to 0 :)

    • Replies: @Anon
  74. @Anatoly Karlin

    The drawing of the homunculus with the elephant-shaped brain is very spooky!

  75. @Bliss

    So how come their higher visuospatial IQ does not make them better drivers?

    That’s because its an incorrect heuristic.

    The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration crash fatality rates for the African American populations are 12.31 deaths per 100,000 people and its pretty similar with other races(except for Native Americans, who have insanely high driving fatality rates). For Asians, the fatality rate was only 4 per 100k. That could be attributed to reduced alcoholism, however, in just crash numbers, Australia’s University of Sydney found in 2010 that Asians are involved in only half as many automotive accidents, and a Canadian study replicated this in 2011.

    The reason why this heuristic exists, nonetheless, is because Asians(especially in Asia) do not seem to acknowledge traffic rules often enough, which can be incredibly annoying and makes driving in Asian countries extremely unpleasant. Niceties such as communicating with the other driver, or even signaling are often just not done; the fact that it doesn’t result in more accidents actually means that such behavior will keep continuing. But all of the spatial awareness in the world won’t help your fellow drivers if you don’t think the rules apply to you, or more specifically, just don’t care about them.

    At any rate, the WHO rundown of the most dangerous countries to be on the road has only one vaguely East Asian country, Thailand, and several African states.

    https://www.therichest.com/rich-list/poorest-list/10-countries-with-the-worst-drivers-in-the-world/

    • Replies: @Bliss
  76. Michael Hart’s book Understanding Human History is good entertainment and just-so stories, not good if you’re trying to actually learn about human history.

  77. songbird says:
    @utu

    Does “I can easily believe” mean you are credulous? Or you are not really thoughtful when expressing yourself?

    Now, now… “I can easily believe” is an expression, just as is “I find it hard to believe.” Maybe, it is as others have inferred and you aren’t a native English speaker?

    Let me put it this way, so it is more understandable for you: I did not live in a Jewish neighborhood (though probably a more Jewish part of the country). The nearest synagogue I knew of was two towns over, but many of my smarter than average classmates were Jews, based on what classes they were in: honors and advanced placement, based on their SAT scores, and what colleges they went to: Harvard, John-Hopkins, etc. Who their fathers were: doctors, a concert player, etc.

    The smartest guy I ever knew was probably Chinese. He drew a complicated phase diagram from memory. I once heard his intelligence remarked on, by someone I had no reason to suspect even knew him – I recognized who he was talking about immediately, even though I did not myself know him very well either.

    The only out and out dumb East Asian I ever knew had Down Syndrome. In contrast, one of the few Indians I knew as a boy was a complete dumb-ass. I knew another one who was about average, but a pothead. I did not know any obviously smart ones in college. I am sure there were some, but I did not know them.

    Meanwhile, I have repeatedly been struck by how stupid many of the blacks I’ve known seem to be. Now, none of this is scientific or statistical, but Asians and Ashenazis seem to punch above their weight, while the American dot-Indians I’ve known seem at best to have the intelligence of whites. Maybe, they don’t. Maybe, it is statistically higher, and/or maybe the mean has risen, as new ones have come ashore.

    Could the official Ashkenazi IQ estimate be off? Higher than it actually is? Quite possibly. The true average seems higher than the white average though. Maybe, there are even subgroups of whites that are the same, but whites aren’t as tribalistic, so it is harder to know when someone is an Episcopalian than a Jew.

    BTW, contra Ron Unz and I believe also you, two of the stupidest people I ever knew were Hispanic. They had AIDS that they had gotten from sharing needles, and decided to have a baby, I was literally gawking at how stupid they were, and the dysgenics of it all, so that my teacher noticed, probably misinterpreted it, and smiled at me, probably thinking I was impressed with the technology that gave the baby a good chance of being born HIV-free. Now, of course that is incident, but I never knew a smart Hispanic.

    • Replies: @utu
  78. @Unknown128

    “I think that the great variability between male and female IQ is also a very important factor”

    It’s built into the test.

  79. @Polish Perspective

    PISA are scholastic achievement tests; not tests of “intelligence” (whatever that is).

  80. @utu

    “How does 6-7 points feel?”

    What does 6-7 points mean in terms of brain states?

  81. @utu

    “Almost everything can be explained by IQ”

    If you craft just-so stories sure “Almost everything can be explained by IQ”, but if no novel predictions are made than who cares that “Almost everything can be explained by IQ”, since no novel predictions are made to possibly falsify the “IQ hypothesis”?

    • Replies: @utu
  82. BlackFlag says:
    @reiner Tor

    I suspect that virtually everything we value is now maladaptive. Good luck to us.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
  83. @Spandrell

    Only foreigners complain about Chinese writing. Yes, it’s hard to learn. But then you learn it, and it’s done. It doesn’t affect your brain.

    But there is evidence that it does, or something in the culture does if not the language, affecting perception which is a pretty significant part of how you use your brain.

    This is the classic Nisbettian work based on the Morris & Peng studies on Asian versus European perceptions of the world which found that Asians generally saw the world as contextual and holistic rather than specific and detailed(the latter which would be better for scientific association). What’s less known though is that in a followup study, however, Hong Kong participants(who had grown up in British schools and spoke English) could be primed to think in “Western” ways simply by showing them images of Western culture(Mickey Mouse, cowboys, etc). Showing them pictures indicative of Chinese culture reinforced their “Eastern” thinking. Showing them neutral pictures kept results in the middle.

    Another study by Ara Norenzayan in 1999 looked to see if the Japanese participants could make the correct “rule-making” associations for criteria judgment(something likely relevant for science), and found that Japanese participants made twice as many errors as European tested. However. Asian Americans did not make more errors, so it seems unlikely to be purely genetic unless there’s some self-selection for immigration that involves rule-making associations.

    Incidentally, Mr. Karlin, there is a study which supports the idea of East Asians being more similar to women in terms of group behavior/conformity. Japanese participants sought to escape from unpleasant situations by seeking to be in a group, similar to American women in the study. American men, on the other hand, sought to escape unpleasant situations alone. No objective reason was provided for either to be more likely.

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @Spandrell
  84. BlackFlag says:
    @Spandrell

    Do blogs/forums where people spend countless hours of their lives discussing abstruse topics that give them no material benefit exist in East Asian countries?

    I don’t get how AK goes from deciding it’s not IQ to thinking it must be conformity. Conformity explains differentials in number of rebellious teens. Intellectual obsession explains differentials in innovation.

    It’s a small percentage of innovations that require upending a tabboo. Euclid’s geometry didn’t. Neither did coming up with the ideal gas law.

    Even if some do, I doubt being a non-conformist is a significant factor. Did Galileo develop his idea about the sun and the earth cause he was a rebel? Doubt it. After all, only one of his many innovations challenged a taboo. Intellectual obsession explains all of them.

    Let’s look at one of the most innovative people of the 20th century – Jon Von Neumann. There are lots of stories about how smart he was. What else did he have? Edward Teller thought it was this: “For most people thinking is painful. Jonny loves to think; in fact, it’s the only thing he enjoys doing.”

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    , @DFH
    , @Spandrell
  85. @Philip Owen

    Someone unprepared to invest to promote mangoes is never going to find out. I will guess yes.

    Someone should do a study on chupatz. To have the audacity to get people – even highly experienced, credentialed, etc – to work for free for you for the opportunity to help you make money is a pretty classic example of that. Its interesting how it can often work, by framed in the right way, and by aiming at the right people.

    I suspect its one example of behavior that’s probably individually beneficially, but societially negative especially as it becomes adaptive to have the skills needed to convince others to do so. At some point, it basically is a form of legal business in hoodwinking.

    • Replies: @notanon
  86. neutral says:

    Check this out:

    https://www.rt.com/news/431692-latvia-racist-political-ad/

    Good to see that not everyone in Latvia is a complete cuck or neoliberal.

  87. @BlackFlag

    Conformity can affect scientific production in many ways. I had a friend who was studying an brain/machine emulation in Beijing University, and was doing well on it until his family pressured him to get a “real job” instead of an academic job that paid nothing. He eventually gave in.

    He’s still smart and he’s still very capable, but now he’s just yet another software design architect crunching for a big company rather than advancing the frontiers of human knowledge.

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @BlackFlag
  88. Anon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    In fact if I understand their religions correctly, there was even some sort of taboo about venturing outside of India itself. The Indian Ocean was something you weren’t supposed to venture out into.

    That was for Brahmins; the result was loss-of-caste. I imagine that was probably some sort of power play on some group’s behalf five hundred years or so ago.

  89. @Abelard Lindsey

    By his theory, reliigious belief in modern humans is a vestigial remnent of the bicameral mind.

    I’m sympathetic to some materialistic explanations for religious belief, but the notion that all humans were once all schizophrenic and we “grew sane” seems as likely as fairies in the backyard. Pop psychological history really does deserve to be together with Freud: entertaining fictions.

    • Replies: @Abelard Lindsey
  90. BlackFlag says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    Fair enough, I didn’t think of that type of conformity.
    Innovation results from:
    1) Challenging taboo.
    2) Innovator disregarding disapproval from relatives and society by pursuing an impractical project.

    Still seems weak. Innovation normally occurs in line with a good career or a harmless pastime. Pretty sure Darwin was advancing his career by sailing on the Beagle. Did Zheng He have a naturalist? If so, what was he doing? If not, why didn’t the Mandarins put one on his boat?

    There aren’t that many of these great innovations that Murray lists. Someone with intellectual curiosity could go through them and see if non-conformity was a key requirement.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    , @notanon
  91. @BlackFlag

    Charles Darwin, a religious man, struggled for many years of his life with the theory of evolution because he was aware of what it might mean for the theistic creation of life. A more conformist Darwin might just decide that its not worth it, or water down his findings significantly to fit the zeitgeist of the time. And as expected, Darwin did get condemned by many religious authorities during his lifetime.

  92. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0028393201000677

    Random, but possibly connected.

    The effect of testosterone (T) on sexual function in men is well established. However, less is known about its effects on cognitive function. The aim of this study is to investigate the relationship between T levels and sex-typed cognitive abilities in both eugonadal and hypogonadal men…These results offer support to the notion that increased T has a differential effect on cognitive function, inhibiting spatial abilities while improving verbal fluency in eugonadal men.

    • Replies: @Toronto Russian
    , @Zylonet
  93. @utu

    German Shepherds are considered the most intelligent of dogs based on ability to learn commands. I wonder what is their cranial capacity versus other dogs? Are toy dogs mentally more impaired in some way?

    • Replies: @Toronto Russian
  94. DFH says:
    @anonymous coward

    Gott strafe England

    Based Jew memes

  95. DFH says:
    @BlackFlag

    Do blogs/forums where people spend countless hours of their lives discussing abstruse topics that give them no material benefit exist in East Asian countries?

    The Japanese invented imageboards

  96. Anon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @anonymous coward

    I studied Mandarin and I have a basic proficiency. I do not confirm. Reading logographic Chinese is significantly easier than reading pinyin. (Pinyin Chinese is like a phonetic English except without spaces or punctuation; i.e., a nightmare.)

    You do realize Chinese students in China use pinyin to help them learn the characters, right? It’s not a perfect complete system but it’s easier to acquire, which is what Karlin said.

    • Replies: @anonymous coward
  97. Inuit and Yakuts have some of the biggest brains on the planet … their visuospatial abilities are legendary

    All that fish (omega-3 etc)? I get a vague impression that fish-eating people (Scandinavians, Japanese) always seem to be better at visual design.

  98. Dmitry says:

    This may be offtopip or little relevant – an interesting article this week in Nature’s website, about various problems in the research culture in South Korea.

    South Korean science needs restructuring

    Something is wrong with the South Korean R&D system, and everyone knows it. The country invests a lot but gets less and less back. Scientists feel disenfranchised by the government’s opaque system for funding. The public is not seeing solutions to pressing problems, such as air pollution. Even government ministers and economists complain that all those highly cited papers are not generating enough new technologies.

    Full article:

    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05508-z

    • Replies: @Philip Owen
  99. AaronB says:
    @Abelard Lindsey

    Its a different kind of materialism.

    Western materialism is ‘transcendental’ while Asian materialism is normal human interest in acquiring stuff.

    The West seeks salvation in developing the material world – its literally religious. So we pour all our energy and willpower into it. The most important thing to us is to come up with some new way to control or affect the physical world – because we literally expect salvation from it. See transhumanism.

    Asians have the ordinary materialism, they just like stuff – sometimes a bit too much, u admit, esp lately :)

  100. Not Raul says:
    @reiner Tor

    I’d be interested in seeing a statistical analysis of evidence for and against that claim.

    Rimsky-Korsakov and his wife had seven children.

    Having relatively large families may have been typical of people with his class background, though.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
  101. Spandrell says: • Website
    @Daniel Chieh

    Priming, and most psychology is fake science. Don’t believe any of it.

    At any rate none of it has anything to do with the language and much less with the script.

  102. Spandrell says: • Website
    @BlackFlag

    Japan does not have that. All online activity is either 2chan, where people go to shitpost, and Twitter, which is mostly networking.

    China also does not have a blog culture. It does have Zhihu, a very popular Quora clone where very smart people discuss abstruse topics anonymously for no observable benefit besides feeling smart, so yeah, it’s somewhat close to this. There’s also Douban which is a review site for movies and books and people discuss stuff there too.

  103. @Spandrell

    I disagree.

    The Japanese kanji are simplified compared to the traditional Chinese kanji, and they have hana as well. Kana, both hiragan and katakana are alphabets and are very easy to learn because they are purely phonetic. Of course, the mainland Chinese also simplified their kanji, but in a manner different from that of Japan (this was shortly after the war and they were not about to copy anything from Japan). Hongkong and Taiwan still use the traditional kanji. South Korea uses it for place names but not much else since they have their hangul written system (which I know nothing about).

  104. @Daniel Chieh

    Really?

    Because I have yet to run across an explanation for the origin of religion, especially the Abrahamic ones, that comes even close to being as good as Julien Jaynes’ theory. For one, his theory explains 100% perfectly what is called “the Fall” in Christianity. No other theory that I know of even comes close on this one.

    The bicameral mind theory is a specific version of the more general concept of the human personality being a system of subselves. Eric Berne has his version of such with his concept of “Ego States”, which he describes in “Transactional Analysis”, which is still the best psychology book available.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
  105. @Abelard Lindsey

    I’m very familiar with the Society of Mind which originates with Dr. Marvin Minsky(and its opposite, Sir Roger Penrose’s quantum brain) . Its interesting. I think its probably not totally accurate since there is a “semantic default network” observed in the brain, so its not merely a series of isolated subsystems. Its probably still relatively accurate, but I think to some extent, we assume a more mechanistic view of the mind than is warranted. Biological systems don’t isolate as much as our mechanical systems do, so the effects of, for example, hormones and neurotransmitters can wander and cause emergent effects. Even the blood-brain barrier is quite permeable and there is a lot of evidence of the influence of the enteric nervous system which is external to the skull.

    You can trigger religious feelings with DMT without the need for internal voices, and this feels much more consistent with what we know of how the brain works, for example with the striatum having a strong association with positivity(so called “reward center”) but with the actual interpretation of the “good feelings” being filtered through the brain. Dr. Heath’s experiments had one woman experience her “reward” stimulation as seduced; another one of his patients simply experienced it as happiness, and so on. Such religious experiences would be varied: euphoria, seeing beings, and so on. To exactly indicate voices which are then fading away now seems dubious, a kind of precision in evolution without exact mechanism of selection. When in doubt, I favor the more parsimonious explanation especially since DMT is created endogenously by the body.

    • Replies: @Abelard Lindsey
  106. @Not Raul

    Bach had twenty children. But then I think very few descendants down the line. Most of the greatest composers left few or no descendants. Mozart left no descendants (both of his children surviving to adulthood were childless). Beethoven had no children. Schubert, Bruckner, Brahms: no children. Haydn had just one child. (I don’t know if he has descendants today, but I think unlikely.) Mahler had one surviving daughter, who had maybe two children. Wagner had three children (which was probably not more than average at the time), and so still has a number of descendants.

    That’s not much, on average. Maybe it’s not a representative sample, though I’d wager it already contains the very best.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    , @Dmitry
  107. ussr andy says:
    @Phille

    To me it is pretty clear that this is what Ashkenazim excel at. Coming up with just-so-stories.

    here’s one, if I may: the male-female gap in innovation is because it’s all ultimately a mating display.

    • Replies: @Ali Choudhury
  108. @reiner Tor

    Ravel had no children. Debussy one daughter, who barely survived her a year.

  109. Dmitry says:
    @reiner Tor

    From memory – I can think of example of “maladaptive” are Schumann and Scriabin, who both had notable mental disorders.

    Both Schumann and Scriabin have a lot of children (Scriabin with two wives, and Schumann with his brilliant wife who also inspired Brahms).

    I’m not sure having children is the correct criteria.

    Mental illness is probably the factor which can positively correlate with genius, to some extent – so genius is maladaptive to the extent of that positive correlation.

    Recall, Brahms has no children, but despite his alcoholism, he was much more well adapted to normal life than was e.g. Scriabin.

    We can also note that Scriabin was not exactly a “good father” – after his death his family has no money left (his genius son has drowned in the Dnieper shortly after).
    -

    Of course, all this is kind of a strange perspective, since normally any of us would think that men of genius like Brahms have a vastly more long-living legacy in their works than children are worth (children remember you for a few decades after your death, if you are lucky and they are loyal – while legacy Brahms will outlive us all, and even our great-grandchildren).

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
  110. @Dmitry

    This is the biological perspective. My point was that it was not biologically adaptive. Did you not understand it?

    Also, what counts is number of descendants (long term), not number of children. You can have many children and yet no grandchildren. It happened a lot.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
  111. Verdi only had two children, both died in infancy. Then he married a soprano, who had had a number of children from a number of men (and she gave each of them to foster care or to the orphanage), but who had no children with Verdi.

    It’s interesting because Verdi was a very successful composer in the material sense of the world. He made a lot of money and was smart enough to invest it well (he bought land), so he reaped all the benefits of being a great composer.

  112. Dmitry says:
    @reiner Tor

    You want determine “biologically adaptiveness” (to environment) of having musical genius, by number of descendants of the great geniuses?

    You want to say that being musical genius is “maladaptive” because the geniuses have fewer kids or something like this?

    The musical genius of this person will usually be something adaptive to environment in the sense that it provides profession and income for that person. So by definition, is usually an adaptive trait for this person.

    The plausible explanation musical genius (which is in very extenuated form amongst the great names you discuss) might be maladaptive in population, is that any representative population of geniuses will perhaps have higher rates of mental illness than a control population (there is probably some correlation between genius and mental illness).

    In this case, it will be the particular mental illness which we would identity as maladaptive (and the musical genius is simply factor which may positively correlate with rates of mental illnesses).

    The correlation between musical genius and mental illness will be a very interesting and complicated topic, although trying to claim the musical intelligence is maladaptive factor – not very plausible.

    The thing is mental illnesses are maladaptive factors in most (societal) contexts, but not necessarily in the area of having children (what you are defining as “biological adaptedness”) – otherwise we will see rates of mental illness falling in each generation, and the genetic preconditions of mental illness falling in the population, other things equal. (Although someone may respond that recessive genetic passing of genetic preconditions bypass this and allow it to remain in population).

    -

    I find your discussion is interesting though, to see you mentioning facts about the life of these great composers.

  113. Dmitry says:
    @Dmitry

    I think of Bruckner in this discussion. Another musical genius, who never had any girlfriends.

    In this case, perhaps some factors could be related inseparably to his musical intelligence. His mental illness was being “obsessively pedantic” (it could be obsessive compulsive disorder).

    This could be seen as inseparable part of his musical genius, considering the obsessively intricate nature of his symphonies.

    It also exhibited in obsessiveness of his musical studies, in which he wanted a perfect knowledge of harmony theory before he started composing – so he only wrote his first symphony when he was almost middle-aged.

    But it could surely be more plausible, that the more decisive reason for a lack of romances (and therefore descendants), was a simply much more ordinary trait not necessarily linked to his musical talent – his introverted personality. So that after he only tried to get a wife, after he was a famous composer, and already an old man proposing to young women who had no interest in him.

  114. @Daniel Chieh

    These results offer support to the notion that increased T has a differential effect on cognitive function, inhibiting spatial abilities while improving verbal fluency in eugonadal men.

    The “Chad” is canonically a horrible driver.

  115. Bliss says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    the WHO rundown of the most dangerous countries to be on the road has only one vaguely East Asian country, Thailand, and several African states.

    90% of all fatalities on the road are in low to middle income countries. Chaotic conditions, bad roads, few lights and crosswalks, over crowded vehicles, lack of ambulances and hospitals, untrained drivers etc skew the numbers. Better to compare developed countries:

    https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/transport/road-safety-annual-report-2015/korea_irtad-2015-26-en#page4

    https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/transport/road-safety-annual-report-2015/australia_irtad-2015-7-en#page4

    In Australia deaths per billion km in 2000 was 9.1, in South Korea it was 49.5. South Korea must have taken some safety measures, for deaths in 2013 went down to 17.2, but that was still 3.4 times the deaths (5) in Australia that year.

    For the year 2013 here is how it looked for East Asian vs West European countries in deaths per billion km:

    S. Korea—>17.2
    Japan ——>6.9

    Germany->4.6
    Norway—->4.3
    UK————>3.5
    Sweden—-> 3.4

    South Korea has 5 times and Japan 2 times the death rate of UK and Sweden. Maybe there is some truth in the stereotype after all?

    Another comparison of driving IQ is to look at the very best drivers: the race car drivers. Formula One racing is the gold standard here. The field is dominated by Europeans but the very best driver is an Afro-Brit, Lewis Hamilton. No East Asians to be found at this level, even though F1 racing is popular in Japan, China and Singapore (they all host a Grand Prix).

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    , @Twinkie
  116. Bbh says: • Website

    Is there any prospect of treating dementia soon to at least stop it from getting worse? A genius IQ is not going to save you if you are dying from dementia.

  117. @Bliss

    You did not even read your own links correctly.

    Road deaths by mileage is a pointless metric given differences in population density that is over twenty times higher in South Korea versus Australia. The metric primarily used in the report itself was death by population, which in 2013 is 10.1, and in 2015 is 9.3 per 100k population(WHO statistics). The US has 10.6 per 100k, France at 5.1 and Australia at 5.4.

    Furthermore, this is of mixed vehicle usage, and notable quantities of fatalities were of pedestrians and cyclists. These will naturally be lower in countries with less pedestrian and cycling traffic.

    • Replies: @Bliss
  118. @Bbh

    Are you referring to age-related dementia? In that sense, it is part of the entire effort to address aging.

    To my knowledge, the most promising results have been from carnosine, which has had generally successful results in animal and cell studies, where they decreased brain age in rats and increased the life span on male fruitflies by 20%(female fruitflies benefit only if also treated with vitamin E, at 36%).

    There is some tangential support that it will also help with Alzheimer’s including before/after brain scans, but I don’t believe that a lot of human research has been done. There appears to only have been one specifically with humans in regards to dementia that measured behavioral/cognitive effects:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20224285

    In a double-blind placebo-controlled study addressing the therapeutic potential of carnosine in AD, it was assessed the efficacy of a combination of carnosine plus other antioxidants (formula F) in volunteers receiving donepezil (n = 26), in comparison to patients receiving donepezil plus placebo (n = 26) [90]. Using the Mini-Mental State Examination II (MMSE II) score, Cornelli [90] observed a significantly improvement of cognition in the group receiving donepezil plus formula F, as compared to those receiving donepezil plus placebo.

    I do believe with an aging population, this will be of ever increasing importance.

    • Replies: @Bbh
  119. @Anon

    You do realize Chinese students in China use pinyin to help them learn the characters, right?

    Of course I do. How do you think I learn the characters myself?

    It’s not a perfect complete system but it’s easier to acquire, which is what Karlin said.

    Read my post again and don’t be stupid this time around.

    Literacy (i.e., the ability to read and understand complex texts) is much harder in pinyin than in characters. Recognizing and sounding out words is maybe like 5% of being literate.

    • Replies: @Anon
  120. @Bbh

    Ultimately the challenge is that its hard to heal the brain when we really don’t understand it, and it pays to be skeptical of any hard claims in neuroscience when things like this keep happening.

    Something like that happened with the idea that the brain lacked a lymphatic system, so sleep had a purpose to repair damage and remove waste products from the brain and allow capillaries to act as a substitute lymphatic system. It was all rather elegant and pretty as a theory, and taught in medical schools right up until 2017. And well, probably untrue at least in significant part.

  121. Bbh says: • Website
    @Daniel Chieh

    Well there is an experiment around LMTX that looks at getting rid of taught tangles that seems to have worked with a group of patients. Much of the research so far has been around beta amyloid which seems to be a wild goose chase

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
  122. @Bbh

    Indeed, removing beta amyloids appears to worsen the condition.

    Are you referring to this?

    https://www.j-alz.com/content/second-phase-3-study-results-lmtx%C2%AE-published-journal-alzheimer%E2%80%99s-disease

    I might look into it further. I think ultimately we will be limited since even neurogenesis doesn’t seem like it’ll recover everything, just areas in the hippocampus and maybe a few other selected places. The other neurons will eventually die and nothing will replace it short of superexotic ideas like stem cells or something like that which is basically sci-fi.

  123. notanon says:
    @Bbh

    some recent stuff on that

    1) may be connected to a virus – connection to immune system -> lack of vitamin D from sun light (a lot of elderly don’t get enough sun)

    2) may be connected to brain no longer accepting glucose – connected to diabetes -> switch to low carb, high fat diet

  124. notanon says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    To have the audacity to get people – even highly experienced, credentialed, etc – to work for free for you for the opportunity to help you make money is a pretty classic example of that. Its interesting how it can often work, by framed in the right way, and by aiming at the right people.

    the central banking mafia being the perfect example: “hey guys let’s you make us rich by letting us legally counterfeit your currency!”

    chutzpah is mostly just sociopathy – the big lie works cos

    1) sociopaths enjoy big lies – they get a kick out of fooling people, the bigger the better

    2) normal people are only comfortable telling small lies

    3) normal people assume everyone else thinks like them i.e. mostly honest people think others are mostly honest

    -> normal people find it hard to believe big lies are possible

  125. notanon says:
    @BlackFlag

    2) Innovator disregarding disapproval from relatives and society by pursuing an impractical project.

    I think that’s a good (and common) hurdle in more clannish societies but more widely all innovation comes about as a conflict with the current way of doing things as “conservative” is the safe option: your ancestors survived by doing things this way so don’t change it.

    Still seems weak. Innovation normally occurs in line with a good career or a harmless pastime. Pretty sure Darwin was advancing his career by sailing on the Beagle.

    “normally” – in the West since the industrial revolution – sure but other times and places proto science was witchcraft.

  126. notanon says:

    the well-known quote

    Science advances one funeral at a time.

    speaks to how most people instinctively defend whatever the current “normal” is (for risk-minimizing evolutionary reasons).

  127. @Dmitry

    First of all, the majority of great composers were definitely not mentally ill. They were within the normal range, though often had difficult personalities, but I’d certainly not characterize a Beethoven or a Mozart as mentally ill. I don’t even think Bruckner was mentally ill, though something was definitely off with the guy. Was Ravel mentally ill? Perhaps homosexual (though even that is lacking any proof), if you consider that an illness. (As it definitely is an illness from an evolutionary point of view.) I’m not sure about your examples Schumann and Scriabin. Whatever the reasons for Schumann’s illness, he was still healthy at the time of his marriage and when his children were born. Am I wrong?

    Second, it’s questionable that mental illness has genetic causes. Most likely, it doesn’t. The most likely explanation for a majority of cases is some kind of infection, either viral or bacterial. As is the most likely explanation for a host of chronic diseases. Please read Plague Time: The New Germ Theory of Disease by Paul W. Ewald.

    Third, you still didn’t address my point that having many children is not necessarily adaptive, unless you have grandchildren and great-grandchildren and so on. Especially in an era where mortality was very high.

    I find your discussion is interesting though

    You don’t seem to read a lot of evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology. People like Steve Pinker will often drop things like that in their books.

    • Replies: @Ali Choudhury
  128. Bliss says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    Road deaths by mileage is a pointless metric given differences in population density that is over twenty times higher in South Korea versus Australia. The metric primarily used in the report itself was death by population

    When you are measuring driving ability the population metric is pointless. Accidents can only happen when someone is driving. So accidents by kilometers driven is the most apt metric for our purpose.

    As for population density Australia is 90% urban, compared to 83% for South Korea and 94% for Japan. Very few aussies live in the Outback. You are just looking for an excuse. Why else would you latch on to only Australia and ignore the data for UK, Germany, Sweden and Norway?

    Furthermore, this is of mixed vehicle usage, and notable quantities of fatalities were of pedestrians and cyclists. These will naturally be lower in countries with less pedestrian and cycling traffic.

    Your visuospatial driving skills include avoiding crashing into slow moving pedestrians and bicyclists.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    , @Daniel Chieh
  129. m___ says:

    Almost everything can be explained by IQ, and differential rates in the appearance of intensive agriculture, urbanization, and literacy

    Cause consequence effects for realized intelligence? The need for collaboration and close exchanges, the probabilities for associations of better brains or their resulting output, resulting in being better when intensive agriculture is developed. Allowing for denser communities. Allowing for specialization. Allowing for ease and choice of collaboration.

    About the worry of non-linearity. Today, abstract thinking, resulting performance and product output should not need dense population concentrations, should not need distinction between different political entities, cultures, ethnicities theoretically. There could be a breaking point where the model of urban dominated ways of living would be averse, merely by derivative factors.

    Secondly, the untouched question, does a difference of say a billion people on the total of eight billion have a correlation in realized intelligence? Is there a breaking point here also, that shifts total human numbers from asset to liability.

  130. Bbh says: • Website

    How do you stop the well educated and higher IQ people from supporting SJW causes? Before anyone says STEM, what about the very high cases of austistic people who develop autogynephilia?

    • Replies: @notanon
    , @Daniel Chieh
  131. @Daniel Chieh

    Dog owners agree that one of the smartest breeds is papillon, a toy breed.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
  132. @Dmitry

    Do you listen to classical music? Can you recommend Russian composers?

    For example from Scriabin I only know Le Poème de l’extase, op. 54, which is good, but I don’t listen to it too much. I don’t know most Russian composers, except Tchaikovsky, Stravinsky, Shostakovich and Prokofiev.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
  133. @ussr andy

    I don’t think Isaac Newton was particularly noted as a babe magnet. Those nterested in mating displays are more likely to try to become Big Men than advance the frontiers of knowledge.

  134. @reiner Tor

    Ewald’s theory was interesting in that he believed homosexuality was propagated by a viral infection. I think Greg Cochran also agreed with that.

  135. Twinkie says:
    @Bliss

    As for population density Australia is 90% urban, compared to 83% for South Korea and 94% for Japan.

    You don’t seem to realize or seem to choose to ignore that “urban” areas can have enormously different population densities.

  136. Twinkie says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    Incidentally, in the deeper past, I actually long resisted the claim that East Asians are somehow less curious and so forth. However, things like the Nature Science Index, Kura’s arguments, the data on East Asian participation in “out of left field” communities, etc. have gradually convinced me that there is something to those stereotypes.

    I don’t think it’s lower “curiosity.” East Asians are actually quite curious about, for example, new gadgets.

    My own observation is that East Asians tend to be highly risk-averse, thus driving them toward more the practical than the abstract (hence the massive government funding toward basic research in the West vs. corporation-driven applied science/technological research in Japan and South Korea).

    I even see this comparative tendency even in – of all things – Judo. My decades of coaching youth Judo in the U.S. has confirmed for me that East Asian youngsters are, on average, much more risk-averse than white youngsters. Stereotypically, East Asian kids won’t use a newly learned technique right away in randori and shiai. They’ll drill it for a very long time and only use it once they feel comfortable and confident of a high rate of success. White kids on average tend to jump into using newly learned techniques “live” much sooner… even when they are pretty bad at executing them and invariably get smashed/countered backwards.

  137. Twinkie says:
    @Bliss

    S. Korea—>17.2
    Japan ——>6.9

    This seems to indicate Flynn effect in driving ability. Or maybe it’s just increased familiarity. The history of automobile use is rather shallow in East Asia (and longer in Japan than in South Korea).

    We can figure this out better if we had access to similar data for American-born whites, blacks, East Asians, etc.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
  138. Anon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @anonymous coward

    Recognizing and sounding out words is maybe like 5% of being literate.

    Well, thanks very much for this extremely accurate statistic, derived no doubt with arduous calculation.

    Pinyin is a significant aid to literacy, as are the existence of phonetic alphabets in general. That’s what I said. That’s what Karlin said. That’s even what you said: How do you think I learn the characters myself?

    So with respect to don’t be stupid this time around, maybe try and take your own advice for a change?

    • Replies: @anonymous coward
  139. @Bliss

    If 500 deaths occurred between 500 car accidents with each, your metric will show twice as much safety versus 500 deaths involving a car and a pedestrian (or cycle) in spite of it actually being exactly the same.

    And even casual analysis would have shown that I was comparing the population density of Sydeny against Seoul(urban vs urban). You have neither understood the links you posted, nor my comments about vehicle mixture.

    • Replies: @Bliss
  140. notanon says:
    @Bbh

    currently, successful careers depend on bowing to SJW hegemony

    so the solution is to change the cultural hegemony

  141. notanon says:

    east Asian drivers

    could a population with particularly high visuo-spatial ability get away with “bad” driving (aka correctly judged near misses) if and only if every driver is east Asian but not otherwise?

  142. @Anon

    Pinyin is a significant aid to literacy

    It’s an aid to memorizing characters. It is not an aid in achieving Chinese literacy. (Quite the opposite, in fact. It’d be much easier if the characters had saner and more memorable phonetic labels.)

    Do you understand the difference between ‘knowing characters’ and ‘being literate’?

    That’s what I said. That’s what Karlin said.

    I don’t know who you are, but Karlin has no clue about the Chinese language. No offense, but I really don’t care about his opinion on this topic.

    • Replies: @Anon
  143. @Bbh

    In this, I agree with AaronB that you have to provide an alternative worldview to work towards. A position of defense is unlikely to appeal to the high performing. Mr Karlin, I think, hints at this in fighting for a cause vs fighting for gimmedats.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
  144. @Twinkie

    I addressed that in post 75, basically, though it also includes immigrants.

  145. @Daniel Chieh

    I agree with AaronB

    I don’t know if it’s his idea, it came up multiple times before. A defensive ideology doesn’t attract people. For example when talking about National Socialism, it came up many times that they offered something higher to people: a sense of belonging to a community, a desire to sacrifice (even oneself) for idealistic reasons (the vision of the Thousand Year Reich), something transcendental. Hitler had a genius for theater (he probably got a lot of ideas from Wagner), and he also had a good aesthetic sense. Even Himmler’s stupid mysticism helped a lot. The SS had a huge appeal, and in part it must’ve been due to his mysticism, for example the Wewelsburg complex.

    I’m sure that Richard Spencer’s frequent Nietzsche quotes or the tendency to quote Evola and the likes is also a kind of attempt at creating something less materialistic. It’s obvious that you cannot start a movement by HBD above. I don’t think many of us were under such an illusion.

    That said, the people supporting SJW causes are either self-interested (especially those being members of grievance groups) or they don’t understand its long term results (e.g. unaware of HBD, unaware of the pace of demographic transformation, etc.)

    • Replies: @DFH
  146. Anon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @anonymous coward

    It is not an aid in achieving Chinese literacy.

    Right, that’s why it’s taught in Chinese schools. Makes sense.

    I really don’t care about his opinion on this topic.

    Then why spend so much time in useless acrimony? If you want to make the point that China shouldn’t drop characters and go pinyin-only, that’s a very good point, but why pretend you’re engaging in some sort of disagreement with our host Sr. Karlin about it?

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @anonymous coward
  147. utu says:
    @songbird

    You said ” I can easily believe 112 for Jews, 105-106 for NE Asians.” And you know that 112 is larger than 106, right? And your experience of Asians and Jews does not lend support to your “easy belief” that Jews are smarter than Asians. Nonetheless, you exactly stated that “based on acquaintances, I can easily believe [Jews are smarter than Asians].”

    And yes, English is not my native language but I do not think it is the issue of my understanding English but it is about you being careless/sloppy in expressing some kind of thought. Actually what was your thought?

  148. Anon[250] • Disclaimer says:
    @Guillaume Tell

    Oh dear! That is indeed a very manly thing to say! But not because of IQ at all, it is rather an impulse, a striving to construct, to achieve, to conquer and hold. A properly formed conscience is indispensable for the ‘constructive’ part. Otherwise the IQ losses much of its charm, imo.

  149. @Anon

    I’ll repeat again, for the third time: literacy is not recognizing the characters. The thai language has a simple alphabet, you could learn it in a week. Good luck becoming literate in thai, though.

    Chinese characters are hard to learn but they greatly simplify Chinese literacy. They have a practical use. Don’t comment on the issue unless you know something about it.

    • Replies: @Anon
  150. @Bbh

    I would also like to specifically request if the commentator AP could reply to this with his thoughts.

  151. A (wild) idea.
    Following Mr.Karlins theory, might it not have been better for Europe to have been conquered by Islam in the 8th-9th centuries? Here I mostly refer to the sieges of Constantinople, rather than to the battle of Tours (losing which would not have brought down the Frankish kingdom).
    According to even someone like Toby Huff (who is known to be among the most “eurocentric” contemporary historians of medieval science), the world of Islam was ahead of the West in science (Natural-Philosophy) till the late 14th century……which would mean that Islam was ahead for about 700 years, not a small period of time by any measure. This is despite that fact that the Muslim world had a smaller population then Western Europe at least from the 12th century on that it mostly consisted of a thinly populated vast landmass, while the wests population was far more concentrated, with most of the west being accessible via water transport making communications much easier. The core of the Muslim world was also ravaged by very violent nomad invasions on a semi-regular basis and had a far lower IQ. Despite all of this it managed to stay ahead for 700 years.
    The west had a far worst access to ancient writing and was hampered by the anti-rationalist mindset of the church. This changed only slowly and one of the main catalysts for this was the loot of a vast massive of writing after the fall of Toledo 1085, this new knowledge did a lot to kick start scholastics and rationalism but despite this, it still took the west another 300 years to catch up and overtake the “arab masters”.

    Now had Islam taken over the West by 800 (not necessarily trough conquest, voulonteer conversions of western Kings would also have been a possibility, especially after the fall of Byzantium and the Khazar Khaganate, would have made the eastern Slavs convert and become a battering ram for Islam in Europe) the west would have still retained its genetic and geographical advantages, but also would have had immediate access to ancient writings and to eastern inventions like the Indian numerals or Chinese paper, it would also have converted to Islam at a time when rationalism was flowering in the muslim world, removing the mystical obscurantism of the church as a factor. The (superior) Northwest Europeans would then easily have taken over leadership of the muslim world from the (inferior) Arabs. al-ghazali would not have been a factor, because the intellectual dominance in the world of Islam would have been western anyway (not to mention that according to many scholars, his influence on the development of science is vastly exaggerated in the west). The scientific revolution might have occurred 500 years earlier then it did (probably towards the end of the “medieval warm period”).

    Now there are some objections to this “thesis” that I would like to address:

    1.Racial mixture with Arabs, Berbers and African slaves would have led to a degeneration of the Nordic race: First few Arabs, let alone Africans would settle in northern Europe, in our own history, even the Turks beardly settled in the Balkans and African slaves would not have survived in most of Europe anyway. Arabs and Berbers were few in number, they beardly colonized Spain or Sicily, they would have at best spread as a purely administrative elite north of the pyrenes/Alps and would have been replaced by (superior) natives after a few centuries.

    2. Inbreeding would have led to a degeneration of the Nordic race: Firstly, Muslims in Europe didn’t practice much of the cousin marriage, typical for the middle east (and had far lower rates of polygamy as well). Albanians, Bosnjaks or Wolga Tatars don’t practice it, so it seems that this custom usually remains in Asia or Africa and does not spread into Europe. But the Europeans of 800 were still used to clannishness….could they have maintained it under Islam? If this is so one has to ask how harmful inbreeding actually is. Does it lower IQ? The Japanese are far more inbred then other (civilized) East Asians, but while having more genetic diseases and a smaller stature, they still retain the IQ typical for (civilized) East Asians. Ashkenazi Jews are also strongly inbred as well. Inbreeding might indeed lead to clannishness, but as Mr.Karlin stated above, clannishness does have no effect on either science or economic wealth. While clannishness in the Muslim world can often be violent and dysfunctional, the clannishness of East Asians or Ashkenazi Jews is neither. Why would the higher IQ Europeans follow the pattern of low IQ middle easterners?

    3. Islamic financial laws would have hindered economic growth: See Mr.Karlin, institutions have no impact on wealth (unless its communism).

    So what do you people think about this idea? Were Hitler and Nietzsche right for having desired an Islamic takeover of Europe (although for rather different reasons)? Would the Wests embrace of Islam led to far earlier progress and put the natural Nordic master-race on top of a vast Muslim world-system over half a millennium before it actually took it over (for a short period of time)?

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    , @Hyperborean
  152. Such a well thought out (and sourced) theory…..marked as spam. Im disappointed. And this despite the fact that so many far-right authorities have already contemplated the very same question.

    AK: Oops. Maybe better wait a few minutes before throwing around censorship accusations.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
  153. DFH says:
    @reiner Tor

    I’m sure that Richard Spencer’s frequent Nietzsche quotes or the tendency to quote Evola and the likes is also a kind of attempt at creating something less materialistic.

    You give him too much credit. He just says stuff that sounds cool to his juvenile mind.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
  154. phil says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    Apart from IQ considerations, women are less interested, on average, in abstract speculation.

    • Replies: @notanon
  155. @DFH

    He just says stuff that sounds cool to his juvenile mind.

    Non-materialistic (or non-materialistic sounding) things usually sound cool to most minds. Would Star Wars be as popular (or as good) with all the cool technical stuff (including the spaceships and the light sabers) if it didn’t have the cool mystical sounding religion of “Force” (and its magic) as well? I don’t think so either.

    I don’t know if Spencer understands this consciously, but he surely does understand it at some level. Unfortunately religion cannot discriminate based on any “protected” category like race (except Judaism can discriminate based on descent, or women could be discriminated against in Judaism or Islam, etc.), so you cannot use the religious loophole to create a parallel society.

  156. @Polish Perspective

    …greater East Asian conformism
    …Isn’t this an old stereotype(or even a slur)
    …Their AI efforts are already world-class.

    .
    China’s Social Credit System: AI-driven panopticon

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
  157. @Hippopotamusdrome

    Eh, I wouldn’t read too much into the social credit system. As the article itself notes, there are “credit” systems worldwide already and this doesn’t actually look like its centralized.

    This shouldn’t surprise us. Society in the West has already accepted a fairly extensive social credit system for many decades, including private credit ratings, employee assessments which can be shared, customer cards and reward credit cards, Professor of Law and International Affairs at Penn State Law Larry Cata Backer told TechNode.

    Which incidentally, I was reminded of today when my social media under my real name just got randomly checked by a some company recruiter, I presume, someone who was scouting me from LinkedIn. Good thing that I removed any of my actual opinions there. Glory to social justice, blahblah.

    Anyway, from the most optimistic perspective, I can hope that it’ll help engineer a higher trust culture. in China.

  158. Anon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @anonymous coward

    I repeat:

    why pretend you’re engaging in some sort of disagreement with our host Sr. Karlin about it?

    Yes, when you have learned pinyin, you have not learned Chinese, any more than my using the Latin alphabet proves I read Spanish (I do, but that’s beside the point). This is a valid point, but one wonders in what way you imagine you are disagreeing with any point anyone else has made? Is there something else you are trying to say?

    • Replies: @anonymous coward
  159. @Unknown128

    When you become mecha-AK, allocate some process memory for moderating comments. But more for remembering grudges.

  160. @Unknown128

    The (superior) Northwest Europeans would then easily have taken over leadership of the muslim world from the (inferior) Arabs

    From what I could tell, the Persians were culturally and intellectually quite superior to the Arabic portions of Islam(and significant contributor of the Islamic Golden Age), but they didn’t manage to takeover leadership of the Muslim world, did they?

    • Replies: @Unknown128
    , @Talha
  161. @Unknown128

    So what do you people think about this idea? Were Hitler and Nietzsche right for having desired an Islamic takeover of Europe (although for rather different reasons)? Would the Wests embrace of Islam led to far earlier progress and put the natural Nordic master-race on top of a vast Muslim world-system over half a millennium before it actually took it over (for a short period of time)?

    Not worth slouching towards Mecca for.

  162. @Toronto Russian

    Interesting. I went through this:

    https://petrix.com/dogint/intelligence.html

    Most of the top 10 dogs are medium-large dogs – some of them, such as the Poodle, have mini variants but I doubt those were the ones ranked by the trainers(can’t tell for certain). The Papillion is there, though, as an interesting outlier at 10 lbs and #7. It also has an interesting pedigree from spaniels, which are themselves in “excellent” intelligence before being bred into a toy form, but it outranks its predecessors.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    , @utu
  163. @Daniel Chieh

    DMT eh? I’ll have to give it a try sometime.

    • LOL: Daniel Chieh
  164. @Daniel Chieh

    My parents have a mini-poodle and a Yorkie. The mini-poodle is MUCH smarter.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
  165. @Anatoly Karlin

    One of my fantasies is to introduce human astrocytes to wolves and then allow the natural process of rewilding to take place. BAP-senpai would approve, don’t you think?

    https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26639-the-smart-mouse-with-the-half-human-brain/

    I also played Green in Magic the Gathering.

  166. @Daniel Chieh

    Persians don’t exactly have higher IQs then most other middle easterners. They just were more civilized culturally. Also they happened to be in the way of Turkic tribes….I think that between 1000 and 1900 there were like 15 Turkic and Mongol dynasties ruling Persia, some of which had colorful names like “Black rams”….Meanwhile Northern Europe was geographically much safer and whatever Islam would have been practiced there would have been a specifically European one (considering that European Muslims would have outnumbered Middle easterners by at least 1200).

  167. Talha says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    Actually they did on the intellectual and spiritual levels for sure. As far as politics; the Abbasids were often half or more ethnic Persian. And that’s not taking into account two other major factors; 1) all conquering tribal people were civilized through Persian cultural influences in that area and 2) part way through the Abbasid reign, the unity of Islam shattered and they were simply titular heads over fairly powerful and independent Persian-Turko rulers like Khwarezm and Ghznavids.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Talha
  168. utu says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    The Dog Who Knows 1,000 Words

  169. Talha says:
    @Talha

    If you want to keep top spot, it is not enough to be intellectual and civilized. You need fighting ability and Persia simply did not have enough to hold its own against people like the Arabs or various Turks. They had to settle for civilizing and absorbing them – a lot of parallels actually with the various Germanic tribes and their takeover of Rome.

    Peace.

  170. utu says:
    @RaceRealist88

    Just-so stories of evolution are unfalsifiable. This is the ultimate strength of the theory of evolution. Even Karl Popper had doubts whether the theory of evolution was a theory at all beyond being a tautology that must be true ex definitione and thus can’t be falsified. But the theory of evolution can be falsified but not on the level of the just-so stories that are being commonly told. The stories are destined to be true. That’s why that they so much fun telling them because making utterance that are always true is very empowering. The truth is the ultimate rhetorical device.

    The IQism however is entirely different matter. Its popularity and success hinges on sneaky reifications that blind people to notice serious epistemological issues.

  171. Dmitry says:
    @reiner Tor

    Do you listen to classical music? Can you recommend Russian composers?

    For example from Scriabin I only know Le Poème de l’extase, op. 54, which is good, but I don’t listen to it too much. I don’t know most Russian composers, except Tchaikovsky, Stravinsky, Shostakovich and Prokofiev.

    It’s an area I’m sorry to be a geek – and I’m not sure Karlin wants us to convert his blog comments to a music forum, so I add this MORE tag and continue write underneath MORE and will copy and paste you some recommendations from a youtube playlist.

    [MORE]

    I don’t know if you listen to CDs, or if you download music files (the best place to get FLAC files is is on soulseek)?

    I grew up playing piano so listen more on piano compositions, which is where Scriabin and Rachmaninov were gods. (I don’t know if you prefer opera or something) (Rachmaninov’s writing for orchestra is much more disappointing)

    I copy-paste videos from my YouTube playlist -( and if you want CD recommendations, obviously the sound quality to hear the beauty of a piano is not possible on YouTube)

    Most famous etude of Scriabin(with its “stormclouds and rainbows”)

    Another classic

    Another beautiful composition

    Rachmaninov

    Rachmaninov prelude “The Return” (later stated as the favourite of the composer’s many preludes)

    Tchaikovsky – I used to play this

    Of a beautiful poem of Lermontov

    Rachmaninov – elegy

    Rachmaninov’s Vespers (these masterpieces, but best in small doses)

    There was the genius Hungarian pianist Zoltan Kocsis – recently died. He wrote famously a new, very ornate arrangement of the Rachmaninov’s vocalize

  172. Bliss says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    If 500 deaths occurred between 500 car accidents with each, your metric will show twice as much safety

    How does that make the mileage metric pointless as you claimed ? How is the population metric (which includes non-drivers), the correct metric to measure driving ability? Try and think rationally.

    And why the hell should the crashes with pedestrians and cyclists be ignored? Do they not also measure visuospatial IQ?

    And btw, even if you disregard the deaths involving pedestrians and cyclists the rate is still many times higher in South Korea (6.84) than in the UK (2.26)

    https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/transport/road-safety-annual-report-2015/united-kingdom_irtad-2015-42-en#page5

    https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/transport/road-safety-annual-report-2015/korea_irtad-2015-26-en#page4

    And even casual analysis would have shown that I was comparing the population density of Sydeny against Seoul(urban vs urban).

    No you were not. You were comparing Australia to South Korea. Anyone can check and confirm.

    In any case your point that higher population density results in higher deadly car accident rates is contradicted by the data. For example:

    https://stats-japan.com/t/kiji/11911

    Kagawa Prefecture (1355/sq mi density) has almost 5 times the accident fatality rate as Tokyo (16,121/sq mi density).

    https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/eb63/be3106ea8fa91f1ad1b39b90bd852ce8f0f1.pdf

    Population density was also associated with fewer crashes. Each additional person per net residential acre decreased accident incidence by 0.05%.

    A study by Reid Ewing of the University of Maryland 2009[3] also concluded that dense urban areas appear to be safer than the lower volume environments of the suburbs.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
  173. @Bliss

    Mixed traffic will badly distort the fatality/mileage metric but not the fatality/population metric, which I just explained and which you failed to understand. And as far as the effort to cherry pick in an increasingly futile effort to make your point(suburbs with less road development are going to have more accidents, what a surprise), I think this picture alone is enough to explain how density neatly increases accidents:

    Again, traffic mix alters things. In Tokyo, where commuting by foot via public transportation exceeds all other forms of transportation, you will have…fewer road deaths.

    Such an amazing thought.

    Really, the most useful comparison in this that minimizes other variables is National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which compares ethnicity directly against each other, with at least the same mix of vehicles, in the same driving conditions, in the same country.

    https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/810995

    Which is, in fact, a nontrivial difference in fatality rate.

    Have fun being wrong as you continue to cherry pick for your ego.

  174. @Daniel Chieh

    In fact, the NHTSA stats themselves demonstrate an excellent example of how vehicle mix impacts fatality statistics, making this a teachable moment. On page 3, it mentions that whites make up an enormous number of motorcycle fatalities.

    Over the last several years motorcyclist fatalities have increased significantly. In 2006, 4,837 motorcyclists were killed in motor vehicle traffic crashes. As shown in Table 2, Whites accounted for 68 percent of motorcyclist fatalities as compared to Hispanics and African-Americans, who accounted for 7 percent and 8 percent, respectively.

    Does this mean that whites are much worse drivers than Hispanics or African-Americans, or at least specifically, much worse motorcyclists? No. Whites are simply much more likely to be motorcycle users:

    https://brandongaille.com/32-compelling-motorcycle-demographics/

    the primary customer is a Caucasian/White male above the age of 35, it is important for the industry to create an interest in their product.

    By simply having a more motorcycles in the hands of whites versus car usage, this increases the number of accidents on motorcycles, and increases the number of fatalities experienced due to dangers of motorcycles accidents. This does not indicate, for example, that whites are bad drivers or even bad drivers specifically on motorcycles.

  175. Bliss says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    Mixed traffic will badly distort the fatality/mileage metric but not the fatality/population metric

    You keep repeating this BS as if you are making sense. The fatality/population metric does not measure driving ability because it includes non-drivers (who may be the majority in densely populated cities). It is distorted from the get go. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

    Whether you drive 100 fast miles on the freeway, 10 medium paced miles in the suburbs or 1 slow mile in the city, you are still driving. It still requires visuospatial skill. You can nitpick the fatality/mileage metric all you want, but it is still the best metric available.

    Running over pedestrians and cyclists while driving at slow speeds in the city is very bad driving. Capische?

    I think this picture alone is enough to explain how density neatly increases accidents:

    Laughable stupidity. As if this picture trumps the data I provided. It is truly foolish to think such traffic congestions lead to accidents that result in death or injury.

    As for the NHTSA chart it should be obvious to you that it can’t be a true reflection of asian driving ability. Why don’t you apply your nitpicking skills to figure out what’s wrong with that chart?

  176. @Bliss

    Whether you drive 100 fast miles on the freeway, 10 medium paced miles in the suburbs or 1 slow mile in the city, you are still driving. It still requires visuospatial skill. You can nitpick the fatality/mileage metric all you want, but it is still the best metric available

    Whether you ride 100, 10 or just 1 mile on a bike, you will not be recorded. It’s such a great metric that the WHO does not even record it.

    Like I said, enjoy being wrong.

    • Replies: @Bliss
  177. Bliss says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    Whether you ride 100, 10 or just 1 mile on a bike, you will not be recorded. It’s such a great metric that the WHO does not even record it.

    How the hell could WHO record bike mileage anyway? WHO does not record pedestrian mileage either. How could it? Does that make the fatality/mileage metric pointless as you insist? Get real. You don’t have even a single good point to make.

    enjoy being wrong.

    Lol. Continue deluding yourself. You have plenty of company here. Your HBD/alt-right buddies invite you to their circle jerk.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
  178. @Bliss

    Running over pedestrians and cyclists while driving at slow speeds in the city is very bad driving.

    I’d say driving at high speeds on a highway is easier than driving in a densely populated city full of cyclists and pedestrians, though. Especially on a mileage basis – you can drive 20 miles in 20 minutes at the highway while taking over, say, 20 cars, whereas in a city it takes several hours and encountering thousands of other vehicles.

    Actually, I mostly drive in a city, but something like a fifth of my mileage comes from longer trips on the highway. In huge countries with low population densities this could be more. For example in Australia there must be a number of Sydney or Melbourne residents regularly (like every other month) driving between these two cities, while in South Korea the percentage of Gangnam residents driving to Busan must be lower (because Busan is much smaller relative to Seoul than Melbourne is relative to Sydney), and, to top it off, the Seoul-Busan distance is also much smaller. Therefore, the number of miles driven under not very dangerous circumstances (on a highway) must be inflated in Australia relative to South Korea.

    I’d also guess trucks are included in miles driven, in which case the statistic is further distorted, because huge trucks will drive most of the distance on highways, so in Australia this relatively low danger driving by professionals must be longer (in terms of mileage; not in terms of hours driven), as opposed to South Korea, where such long haul truck routes are non-existent, with the longest distance being something like 250 miles or shorter (less than half the Melbourne-Sydney distance).

  179. @Bliss

    Does that make the fatality/mileage metric pointless as you insist?

    Well, there are two vehicles involved, and if you had ever driven in a city with a large pedestrian/cyclist population, you surely noticed that neither cyclists nor pedestrians are especially prone to follow traffic lights, or any rules whatsoever. So, accidents involving them will be very often the fault of the cyclists or pedestrians involved.

    Imagine two situations, one in which 1000 cars are driven 1000 miles without pedestrians (and resulting in, say, 3 accidents), and the exact same number of cars and miles driven, but with 500 cyclists and 500 pedestrians added, and besides the 3 accidents between cars, there will now be an additional 3 accidents involving pedestrians and cyclists. It does not necessarily follow that the drivers are worse in the second case, it’s just that the opportunities for accidents are double that of the no pedestrian cases.

    Besides, you’re not counting accidents (which are impossible to measure, many of them not even recorded by the police in many countries), only fatalities. Imagine a small accident between cars at low speeds, say a car traveling at 15 miles hits another car, and no one dies as a result. Now imagine the same accident with a car traveling at 15 miles, but now hitting a cyclist or a pedestrian. It’s actually quite likely that the cyclist or pedestrian will at least be seriously injured, and could often die, as a result. It’s simply safer to have accidents while sitting inside a one-and-a-half or two-ton piece of metal designed to protect you.

    Anyway, I don’t know if Asians are good or bad drivers, I just think the statistics might not be as conclusive as you think.

    • Replies: @Bliss
  180. Bliss says:
    @reiner Tor

    Besides, you’re not counting accidents (which are impossible to measure, many of them not even recorded by the police in many countries), only fatalities.

    You can count accidents that result in injury, and the links I posted provide that information. That data looks even worse for Japan:

    https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/transport/road-safety-annual-report-2015/japan_irtad-2015-25-en#page3

    Injury crashes in Japan are 122 times the fatal crashes. In the UK it is 81.6 times. In South Korea it is 42.3 times.

    Well, there are two vehicles involved, and if you had ever driven in a city with a large pedestrian/cyclist population, you surely noticed that neither cyclists nor pedestrians are especially prone to follow traffic lights, or any rules whatsoever

    The Japanese are not known for breaking rules. Certainly not as much as westerners. Yet the death rate of pedestrians is 2.4 times the UK rate.

    Methinks this HBD dogma of superior visuospatial IQ in East Asians is the usual pseudoscience you guys are notorious for.

  181. Twinkie says:
    @Bliss

    As for the NHTSA chart it should be obvious to you that it can’t be a true reflection of asian driving ability. Why don’t you apply your nitpicking skills to figure out what’s wrong with that chart?

    You don’t have a good reply for that, do you?

    That graph controls for environment far more than anything else anyone has brought up so far, making comparisons as close as possible to being purely based on race/ethnicity (though it would be nice if we could break down the data further for American-born only and controlled for age/sex).

    By the way, there is also a persistent stereotype in the US that East Asians can’t shoot (guns) very well… which is hilarious given that East Asians dominate Olympic shooting events, a fact not well-known among the general public in the US. The same goes for archery… that pesky visuospatial IQ.

    • Replies: @Bliss
    , @Bliss
  182. Twinkie says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    By the way, another thing to note is that driving fatalities are correlated well to drunk-driving. Though Asians don’t drunk-drive much in the US, the practice is much more culturally acceptable in Japan and South Korea, with predictable results.

    • Replies: @Talha
  183. @Anon

    This is a valid point, but one wonders in what way you imagine you are disagreeing with any point anyone else has made? Is there something else you are trying to say?

    Yes. Read my post again: literate ‘Chinese’ is a huge amalgamation of several languages, including several dead ones. Characters are built around this idea, and facilitate understanding. Pinyin makes understanding harder.

    Conceivably, if the Chinese were forced by some dictator to use only pinyin then they’d have to invent some other (simpler) written language, and after a few generations things would stabilize. But by then they’d have lost all their literate tradition and gained a massive generation gap, and choice of writing system would be the least of their problems.

  184. utu says:

    Road fatalities metric is the product of a very complex process controlled by many parameters. Intelligence or education are the least important parameters that will be overshadowed by many other parameters. That’s why an attempt to pull out intelligence signal from data is futile and idiotic. Bliss, I know what and why you are doing but again it comes to the question whether you are an idiot or you are acting in bad faith. Probably a combination of both. I am surprised that you have managed to get DC engaged. I thought he was above the kind of baiting you like to engage in.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/02/a-map-of-the-worlds-most-dangerous-countries-for-drivers/283886/

    France and Japan reduced road fatalities by factor of 20 since 1970. The US was slightly better than Sweden and UK in 1970 but Sweden and France made greater improvements than the US since.

    For whatever reasons South Korea is where the US was 1980s. More kimchi?

    Some countries in Europe are much worse than Sweden or UK. Czechia has 13.9 (per miles) which is closer to S. Korea than to Germany.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    , @Bliss
  185. @utu

    I mostly wanted to explore flaws in metrics and treating them religiously; for what it is worth, I think you may have inspired me in part for that in your mathematical approach to the many statistics that people claim to hold great, sacred meaning. You and res do not agree on many things, but reading your discussions with him has been of epistemic value to me.

    • Replies: @utu
  186. utu says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    I mostly wanted to explore flaws in metrics and treating them religiously

    Software improvements and availability to draw interesting pictures from lists of numbers leads to the increase of this kind of religiosity. I noticed here on these pages many maps showing poll numbers about, say, attitudes to homosexuality or immigration. Our host or Polish Perspective are good examples of very intelligent people who can ditch their common sense because they are seduced by good looking graphic presentation based on numbers of dubious provenience. The seduction is complete when bias confirmation enter the picture. I think there might be also some aura of mathematics and of being scientific. It is a false objectivism: ‘This is not me talking these are the numbers talking.’ Hiding behind the numbers.

    Just like some degree of improved literacy led to crazy religiosity among various Protestant sects similarly improved numeracy leads to this kind of religiosity where you believe in numbers w/o questioning where ddi they come from. Bible literalists can’t handle questions about which translation do they use and if it is King James then why. But questions like these need to be asked. Anyway, improved numeracy can be as dangerous as improved literacy. Literacy and numeracy are just tools that do not replace common sense and in wrong hands can be fatal. Look at our friend Bliss.

    I had some good exchanges with res. I have learned from him quite a lot and he is a very good sport. Two or so years ago I knew nothing about the IQism. This is work in progress in refining my position and arguments. I made some bad arguments in the past but usually pointing in right direction. Epistemology is under appreciated discipline. But there is a reason behind it because too many epistemic questions leads to paralysis. So it is better to have research done by young PhD students who still is power hungry yahoo and thus does not ask too many questions. Yes, it is about power, ie. finding a place in society for yourself.

  187. Talha says:
    @Twinkie

    There is only one way to legitimately settle this:
    1) Archery battle of best 15 each of Africans and East Asians – last man standing.

    And…

    2) Mad-Max style demolition derby – caveat (Africans can get help from Euros for the cars).

    Let’s make it happen folks!

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
  188. Bliss says:
    @utu

    an attempt to pull out intelligence signal from data is futile and idiotic.

    What an idiot. How do you propose to measure driving ability if not from real world data?

    • Replies: @utu
  189. Bliss says:
    @Twinkie

    That graph controls for environment far more than anything else anyone has brought up so far, making comparisons as close as possible to being purely based on race/ethnicity

    Not true.

    1. Not all asian-americans are East Asians. Not even close, more like half. While the drivers in Japan and South Korea are overwhelmingly east asian.

    2. The environment is not the same either. A much greater proportion of east asians in America live in high density urban areas (which have lower accident rates).

    3. The proportion of asian-americans who drive is below the national average, a very large percentage (half?) of them not being born in America.

    4. The graph does not control for drunk/drugged driving which is far more common among American-born drivers.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
  190. meis says:
    @AaronB

    This is a reply to all, especially White men, not just the original poster of the comment.

    Confucianism. Morality. Discipline. Humble. Guilt (which Karlin has touched).

    Recently, I watched these programs from China:

    Millionaires going back to the village life (in Yunnan I think)
    2014
    Season 1

    https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLRKN8nAk12Zf909jTwje09KOEOSfnJTm3

    2015
    Season 2

    https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLRKN8nAk12ZeL8M8Sq4NPMj_Nxq9Glf_e

    Another title with a similar theme with celebs

    https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUM8x224JrX83Ai3H3ZndAfN9uvI_UUH3

  191. My apologies to Mr.Karlin for accusing him of censorship.

    Tough in my defense I would like to mention, that this is my first time commenting on Unz.com.

    May I ask what the reason was, for my comment to be marked as spam?

    • Replies: @Hyperborean
  192. Does anyone know how far away we are technologically from some form of radical IQ enhancement? Gene editing could be done on embryos, nootropics can raise IQs but only by a small amount, and in the long term, Hans Moravec suggested using what is known as the Moravec Transfer, where neurons are gradually replaced with artificial neurons. Does anyone else know of other potential emerging technologies that could be used to significantly raise IQs of adult humans?

  193. @Unknown128

    What was the exact wording? Are you sure it wasn’t just put in moderation?

  194. @Dmitry

    The South Koreans piggybacked their way into display and other technologies on the back of Russian scientists and engineers brought to Korea on short term contracts. At the time they thought this was cheaper than funding whole teams in Russia. Just cherry pick to top talent. It did’t work sustainably. The eco system to support them wasn’t there. It’s not just about having the best equipment. It would have been better to hire the whole team in Russia.

  195. utu says:
    @Bliss

    How do you propose to measure driving ability if not from real world data?

    You can’t get it from these data because other factors are much stronger than driving ability. Look at France and Japan in 1970-2005 period:

    https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/02/a-map-of-the-worlds-most-dangerous-countries-for-drivers/283886/

    The number of fatalities (per billion km) was reduced by factor of 10. Do you want to tell me that it took 35 years for Japanese and French to improve their driving abilities to get from 100 to 10 fatalities/bkm? Driving abilities by ten fold factor? Don’t you have a feel for reality, no common sense? It was not driving abilities but (1) road conditions (multi lane highways, wide road shoulders, trees removed from road sides, better signs and speed limits), (2) regulations and enforcement, (3) safer cars and seat belts and airbags, (4) special lanes for pedestrians and bikes.

    • Replies: @Bliss
  196. Bliss says:
    @utu

    Look at France and Japan in 1970-2005 period:

    https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/02/a-map-of-the-worlds-most-dangerous-countries-for-drivers/283886/

    What an imbecile. The moron is using data from 1970-2005 in a futile attempt at discrediting conclusions based on data from 2015.

    • Replies: @utu
  197. @Anatoly Karlin

    Imagine that Newton, an extremely high IQ man (one would assume), was born in China in the 1600s. Could he have invented Calculus & Mechanics? That is to ask: without Euclid and Kepler, can it happen? One might answer: with the IQ situation of China, there should have been Kepler and Euclid around, no? Why? But we don’t really know the IQ situation in China 2000 years ago. Something happened in Greece and it had profound impact down the road that is not to be explained away by only looking at the world of recent two hundreds years, I think.

    • Replies: @Anon
  198. @Anatoly Karlin

    Next, imagine Newton was born in England in 1600s, but this time as a woman. What might happen afterwards? I guess that she would be extremely clever at picking herself a nice husband, and she might become the mother of inventors of Calculus. Of course I don’t really know, but the biological situation is there…

  199. utu says:
    @Bliss

    What an imbecile. The moron is using data from 1970-2005 in a futile attempt at discrediting conclusions based on data from 2015.

    I brought up the 1970-2005 data to show the dramatic change by 10-fold factor to make a point that ‘driving ability’ can’t be extracted form the data that you are looking at because other factors than ‘driving ability’ dominate the outcome of the fatalities/bkm metric:

    It was not driving abilities but (1) road conditions (multi lane highways, wide road shoulders, trees removed from road sides, better signs and speed limits), (2) regulations and enforcement, (3) safer cars and seat belts and airbags, (4) special lanes for pedestrians and bikes.

    Is calling me imbecile and moron all that you got?

    • Replies: @Bliss
  200. @Anatoly Karlin

    while acknowledging that the nomads did nothing good for China

    Do you dismiss Peter Turchin’s analysis that frontiers between very different cultures are where powerful nations develop, the conflict promoting the growth of asabiya (social solidarity)?

  201. @utu

    The different rates of Flynn effects on verbal and Raven matrices imply that ‘general intelligence’ may not exist as a single component (factor), i.e., a scalar quantity. Factorization of the same battery of tests now and 40 years ago would yield two different g factors that would not be mutually parallel, meaning that another factor, let’s call it s orthogonal to g, must be introduced.

    You don’t need Flynn to make this argument regarding the inconstancy of g. The same argument was made by Horn against Carroll. Horn argued against g conceived as a third order factor. The problem is that the apparent nature of g changes with the second order factors included in the analysis. Say there are 12 second order factors (there are more), then if you select six of them randomly, obviously you will get a different g than if you chose the other six second order factors.

    The argument stumped Carroll for a while, but finally he thought he had the answer. Horn was confusing a factor, which is a latent variable, with its expression. If the counter-argument is valid, it applies to the argument based on Flynn as well (probably more readily).

    I won’t try to adjudicate. Perhaps Dr. Thompson will weigh in.

  202. Bliss says:
    @utu

    I brought up the 1970-2005 data to show the dramatic change by 10-fold factor

    It was stupid to bring that up because your data is outdated. There is much better and more recent data available, which I provided.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    , @utu
  203. Twinkie says:
    @Bliss

    1. Not all asian-americans are East Asians. Not even close, more like half. While the drivers in Japan and South Korea are overwhelmingly east asian.

    This argument hurts your earlier assertion. Asian countries outside Japan and South Korea generally have higher (some much higher) driving fatalities than they do, so by this logic “Asian-American” fatalities rate should be higher, not lower. Yet it is a fraction of the rates of the other ethno-racial groups in the United States.

    2. The environment is not the same either. A much greater proportion of east asians in America live in high density urban areas (which have lower accident rates).

    Of course the environment is not the same. But within the same country, the environmental differences are controlled far better.

    Are you suggesting that driving environments of different countries are more similar than those found within the same country? If so, you are a moron.

    3. The proportion of asian-americans who drive is below the national average, a very large percentage (half?) of them not being born in America.

    Thanks for bringing up yet another argument that hurts your assertion. Asian-American car ownership is HIGHER than car ownership in Asia. So they should have FAR HIGHER fatalities rate per capita than those in Asia. But, in fact, they don’t.

    4. The graph does not control for drunk/drugged driving which is far more common among American-born drivers.

    This one is likely true, but then there is another problem. Drunk driving is extremely common in countries such as South Korea and accounts for the great majority of traffic fatalities cases. So by that same logic, cross-country comparisons are less meaningful.

    • Replies: @Bliss
  204. Twinkie says:
    @Bliss

    It was stupid to bring that up because your data is outdated. There is much better and more recent data available, which I provided.

    You are either completely stupid or intellectually dishonest. Utu did not claim that the 1970-2005 data were more “up-to-date” than data from later periods. He was getting at the fact there was a substantial decline in traffic fatalities during that period across countries and that the declines in France and Japan were FAR MORE dramatic than those in the U.S. and Sweden.

    His point was that a snapshot comparison of any given year across countries was not particularly meaningful, given that there was apparently a stronger Flynn effect in some countries than others (which I speculate – reasonably – had to do with increased familiarities brought on by increased car ownership).

    At this point, I don’t even know why I am arguing with you. You have zero knowledge of even the basics of statistics and a scant notion of controlling for variables.

    • Replies: @Bliss
  205. Twinkie says:
    @Talha

    There is only one way to legitimately settle this:
    1) Archery battle of best 15 each of Africans and East Asians – last man standing.

    And…

    2) Mad-Max style demolition derby – caveat (Africans can get help from Euros for the cars).

    You know that will be very unfair to the Africans. I mean look at all those black faces on the podium: https://www.olympic.org/news/south-korean-archers-extend-their-olympic-reign

    And just look at two of those “Russians” who placed second. https://stillmed.olympic.org/media/Images/OlympicOrg/News/2016/08/07/2016-08-07-archery-inside-02.jpg?interpolation=lanczos-none&resize=1060:*

    And, bro, haven’t you seen “The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift”? That’s not entirely fiction you know:

    • Replies: @Talha
  206. Bliss says:
    @Twinkie

    Asian countries outside Japan and South Korea generally have higher (some much higher) driving fatalities than they do,

    It was utterly idiotic of you to claim that chart was “as close as possible to being purely based on race/ethnicity”. That clearly identifies you as either a shameless liar or a clueless fool. To be purely based on race/ethnicity all Asian-Americans would have to be East Asians (which is the race/ethnicity being compared).

    Instead of acknowledging your mistake you piled on with more stupidity. Did you “control for variables” like third world infrastructure and services in these “countries outside Japan and South Korea)” when you judged them to be worse drivers than East Asians?

    Are you suggesting that driving environments of different countries are more similar than those found within the same country? If so, you are a moron.

    The research I quoted was not a comparison between different countries but between driving environments within America. You are just trying to avoid answering my point. Here it is again, you sneaky liar:

    https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/eb63/be3106ea8fa91f1ad1b39b90bd852ce8f0f1.pdf

    Population density was also associated with fewer crashes. Each additional person per net residential acre decreased accident incidence by 0.05%.

    A study by Reid Ewing of the University of Maryland 2009[3] also concluded that dense urban areas appear to be safer than the lower volume environments of the suburbs.

    Asian-American car ownership is HIGHER than car ownership in Asia. So they should have FAR HIGHER fatalities rate per capita than those in Asia. But, in fact, they don’t.

    More dishonest sneakiness. You are still pretending as if that chart (from 2006 by the way) is the last word on East Asian driving IQ when in fact it far from it. As I showed in post#191

    Show us where you learned that car ownership among East Asian Americans in 2006 (the “graph” you are clinging to so desperately) was higher than car ownership in Japan and South Korea in 2015. More relevantly, show us whether East Asian Americans had higher car ownership rates than the American average, in 2006.

    Bottom line, based on the best metric we have: fatal and injury crashes per billion vehicle-kilometers, drivers in Japan and South Korea have significantly worse driving records than drivers in the UK. Which raises doubts about the claims of the superior visio-spatial IQ of east asians. No wonder you and Chieh got your tails up on this issue.

  207. Bliss says:
    @Twinkie

    You are either completely stupid or intellectually dishonest.

    Lol. That’s rich coming from a sneaky liar who can’t think rationally. It takes an idiot like you to stubbornly insist that crash deaths per 100,000 population is a true metric of driving ability. And only a complete moron would claim that data on asian-americans is “as close as possible to being purely based on race/ethnicity”.

    His point was that a snapshot comparison of any given year across countries was not particularly meaningful, given that there was apparently a stronger Flynn effect in some countries than others (which I speculate – reasonably – had to do with increased familiarities brought on by increased car ownership).

    Neither of you is drawing the correct conclusion from that chart even though it was spelled out for you. Japan and France caught up with the UK and US not because of some imaginary Flynn effect but because they followed the latters’ example and adopted and implemented simple safety measures like wearing safety belts and installing air bags in cars. The playing field was leveled by 2005. That variable does not apply in 2015. And don’t lie about snapshots you weasel, the data I provided covers many years.

    Btw, Utu must be smarter than you and Chieh (which is not saying much) for unlike you bozos he found a chart that uses the correct metric.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
  208. Twinkie says:
    @Bliss

    Have fun!

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20544565

    Young drivers who were born in Asian countries were less likely to report engaging in risky driving behaviors than their Australian-born counterparts. The proportion of participants reporting a high level of risky driving was 31.5 percent (95% confidence intervale [CI], 30.8-32.1) among Australian-born drivers compared to 25.6 percent (95% CI, 23.1-28.2) among Asian-born drivers and 30.4 percent (95% CI, 28.4-32.5) among those born in other regions. Asian-born participants had half the risk of a crash as a driver than their Australian-born counterparts (relative risk [RR] 0.55; 95% CI, 0.41-0.75) after adjusting for a number of demographic factors and driving and risk-taking behaviors. The comparative risk was even lower among those aged 17 years (RR 0.29; 95% CI, 0.29-0.75). Risk estimates for people born in other regions did not differ to those for Australian-born respondents. [Boldface mine.]

    Supposedly this was later replicated in a Canadian study.

    And of course those evil, irrationally racist* insurance companies charge Asians less, despite their allegedly worse driving ability!

    https://augustafreepress.com/myth-busting-the-bad-asian-driver-myth-car-insurance-rates-dont-lie/

    What you can find is that on average, auto insurance premiums for all drivers comes out to just north of $900 per year, or about $75 per month. If we were to break that out into racial categories, the average Asian driver in the U.S. is actually paying an annual premium of about $815 per year, or $68 per month – 10 percent less than the average U.S. driver. [Boldface mine.]

    *Another news flash – black drivers incur higher auto insurance premiums than white drivers.

    • Replies: @Bliss
  209. utu says:
    @Bliss

    I brought up the 1970-2005 data to show the dramatic change by 10-fold factor to make a point that ‘driving ability’ can’t be extracted form the data that you are looking at because other factors than ‘driving ability’ dominate the outcome of the fatalities/bkm metric:

    It was not driving abilities but (1) road conditions (multi lane highways, wide road shoulders, trees removed from road sides, better signs and speed limits), (2) regulations and enforcement, (3) safer cars and seat belts and airbags, (4) special lanes for pedestrians and bikes.

    The point was that if in 2017 in countries A, B, C had 3, 6 and 9 fatalities/bkm, respectively one can’t conclude that driving abilities are responsible for differences between the three countries. Other factor similar to those that were responsible for the 10-fold reduction of fatalities in France and Japan in 35 year period account for these differences. It is not driving ability that makes country C three times more dangerous than country A. The country C most likely could be improved by emulating the country A.

  210. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    The government of India has strict affirmative action for the low IQ lower castes.

    So the upper castes migrate to America where they are hired instead of White men because they are high IQ POCs and keep the EEOC gestapo and black Hispanic and women activists away.

  211. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    19th early 20th century Indian travelers to Europe went by ship and took barrels of Ganges water with them for religious reasons.

    It’s sacred and Hindus are not supposed to go to far from the Ganges. Ganges water is for purification and to worship the Goddess of the Ganges.
    Now days Ganges water is exported from India in plastic pouches.

  212. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Noname Guy

    Didn’t Pascal invent Calculus?

    • Replies: @Philip Owen
  213. bispora says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    “assuming equal IQs”

    This is the key point. Lynn hypothesized about 5 IQ point higher male cognitive ability. Check your numbers whit this knowledge.

  214. Bliss says:
    @Twinkie

    Young drivers who were born in Asian countries were less likely to report engaging in risky driving behaviors than their Australian-born counterparts.

    So asians are less prone to risky driving? That’s a good thing. But it’s bad for your argument: it makes the high crash rates in Japan and South Korea even better evidence of low visuospatial IQ in East Asians.

    the average Asian driver in the U.S. is actually paying an annual premium of about $815 per year, or $68 per month – 10 percent less than the average U.S. driver.

    Considering that asian drivers are less prone to risky driving, less likely to drive while impaired (by alcohol and/or drugs) and more likely to drive in safer environments, the 10% discount seems low. Perhaps it would be higher if they were better drivers?

    • Replies: @Twinkie
  215. Bliss says:
    @Twinkie

    East Asians dominate Olympic shooting events…….The same goes for archery… that pesky visuospatial IQ.

    This must be the umpteenth time you have boasted about asian domination in shooting and archery. Here is the list of Olympic champions in shooting and there is no such domination:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Olympic_medalists_in_shooting#rifle_three_positions_2

    There is South Korean domination in Olympic archery though. But archery and shooting are two of the least popular sports. How can performance by a few individuals in activities with few participants trump performance in an activity like driving which is extremely common, when you are comparing races?

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
    , @utu
    , @utu
    , @Twinkie
  216. Okechukwu says:
    @Bliss

    Brilliant stuff throughout the thread. I appreciate how thoroughly you dismantled this drivel. You’re the one writer here that I always take time to read.

    • Replies: @Bliss
  217. “Jaychick” = HBD Chick? Or a gestalt with Jayman?

  218. utu says:
    @Bliss

    How can performance by a few individuals in activities with few participants trump performance in an activity like driving which is extremely common, when you are comparing races?

    Di you say also this?

    The field is dominated by Europeans but the very best driver is an Afro-Brit, Lewis Hamilton.

    You meant that he was a good driver because he was Afro or despite of being Afro?

  219. utu says:
    @Bliss

    How can performance by a few individuals in activities with few participants trump performance in an activity like driving which is extremely common, when you are comparing races?

    Did you say this?

    The field is dominated by Europeans but the very best driver is an Afro-Brit, Lewis Hamilton.

    You meant that he was a good driver because he was Afro or despite of being Afro?

  220. Talha says:
    @Twinkie

    OK, OK – let’s do a crash derby with occupants of the car able to use bows and arrows – this should settle it for good! Archery from hanging out the windows of moving, crashing vehicles – very difficult!

    Two teams enter, one team leaves!!!

    Peace.

  221. “(Christianity) did play a role in conserving knowledge during the Dark Ages, and in advancing knowledge after 1100, but it’s not clear how it did that”

    Well – European book-knowledge (the law, science in general, mathematics, medicine, logic…theology…history) took off mainly in the middle ages’ monasteries (and universities) – all of which were Christian (as an aside: lots of Dominicans amongst those scholars). – Just think of Meister Eckhart, Duns Scotus, Occham, Hermann der Lahme (= Hermanus contractus – astronomer, musician, historian (he was the one who started history with the year 0 = Birth of Jesus …and he wrote a book about time (how to exactly measure it- nobody had done this before…) – ((yes, Heidegger went to the Gmnasium in Konstanz, just a few kilometers away from were Hermann had been writing ca. 900 years before him)).

    Here’s middel ages historian Arno Borst drawing a line from Hermanus Contractus to the Computer

    https://www.amazon.com/Ordering-Time-Ancient-Computus-Computer/dp/0226066592/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1531221699&sr=8-1&keywords=arno+borst&dpID=514DK45S4JL&preST=_SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch

    If you want to know better, how all of this this happened, you might want to have a look at the Universalien-Streit (universals controversy). There’s a direct link from there (from Duns Scotus, Thomas Aquinas, Ockham, Eckhart, to Kant, Frege, Wittgenstein, Heidegger, Habermas, Quine, Richard Brandom (Making it Explicit) and Kambartel and… you might have gotten the idea….(I – but that was just me, ok, I only recently claimed, that there’d be a direct link between Ockham and Freud, too (Freud’s concept of the joke as something like a short-cut – now you go from there to wit and insight – – and remember, you’re still on Ockham’s (and Goethe’s, Heine’s territory…) – and you’re at the roots of the European State of Mind, i’d hold.
    The Freud-connection to Ockham runs through his (very useful) concept of the neurotic defense-mechanisms too, because neurotic ways of thinking tend to be – rather long (see, Ockham didn’t like thoughts to be rather (=too= unneccesarily) long.
    But as I said, this last idea is just mine, I guess, in our whole wide world at least.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
  222. @Dieter Kief

    Robert Brandom wrote Making it Explicit, Richard Branson’s autobiography I bought on the Reichenau after church, two weeks back, for 1 Euro at a garage sale of the Soroptimists. A few meters away from the monastery, were the above mentioned Hermanus Contractus lived in the Eleventh century…

  223. Art says:

    East Asians (Chinese, Koreans, Japanese) tend to have larger brains and larger visuospatial IQs than Caucasians, but similar verbal IQs. However, they modestly lag in GDP per capita (relative to what it should be), significantly lag in elite science output (again, relative to what it should be), and grossly lag in historical accomplishment (how China was not first to the Industrial Revolution must be one of the biggest puzzles of Intelligence Theory).

    It is not all about brains – it also about cultural knowledge. We have become obsessed with biological brains – when “what” we intellectually believe matters most.

    What the East Asians lack is a productive culture. The West has a superior productive culture. The Eastern cultures emphasis is on harmony. The Western culture emphasis is on hope and continuous advancement. The East honors ancestors – the West children. The East in incurious – the West demands answers. The East does not honor invention – the West credits it and pays for it.

    Even with smaller brains – Western Christian culture is superior because of “what” it believes – it is superior because of its idealistic Christian philosophy – end of story.

    Think Peace – Do No Harm — Maintain Hope, Love, Truth, & Idealism — Art

    p.s. Jews have a rich superior intellectual family life. As children, the emphasis of family life and culture is on word play and argument. Because of their upbringing, it is natural that they would test out superior in the word part of IQ tests.

    • Replies: @Bliss
  224. @Daniel Chieh

    Maybe you can learn to design automotive engines by feng shui principles, then move to Germany and work for Benz, so that German_Reader will be eternally plagued by your work every time he turns the ignition key.

    Speaking of feng shui auto manufacturing:

    In 1998, William Clay Ford Jr. became chairman of Ford Motor and aimed to turn the company green by improving fuel economy and “greening” its production processes. The company even put an energy-efficient “living” roof on a truck assembly plant.

    https://www.innerself.com/content/social/democracy/activism/13655-what-are-the-roots-of-the-new-corporate-activism.html

    Ford’s engineers drank Billy’s Kool-Aid:

    How’s your inner peace and harmony? Check your car’s feng shui

    Feng shui is the art of placement, and it’s a way to bring harmony into your environment – any environment – even a car. In fact, consumers spend so much time on the road these days, creating a relaxing environment in your vehicle just makes sense.

    Francesca Montini | [email protected]

    http://www.4-traders.com/FORD-MOTOR-COMPANY-12542/news/Ford-Motor-Company-Ford-eNews-March-21-2012-14230994/

  225. Rant over. Did I miss anything?

    Has anyone done serious studies on personality characteristics in combination with IQ looking for the unicorns who drive scientific and technological progress? Western Europeans seem to have much more “oppositional defiant disorder” (to use a DSM-5 label) as manifested during the age of discovery, exploration and expansion. If things aren’t to our liking, some of us are happy to go off and risk everything to find something new, different, or just more interesting. It seems like a combination of high IQ and a “fuck you” attitude lead to an Isaac Newton. How many great geniuses in history are remembered as “assholes.” And these are traits most often found in men, especially white men? It’s a special and extreme kind of non-conformity isn’t it?

    • Replies: @notanon
  226. Sparkon says:
    @Alliumnsk

    As for Japanese having phonetic writing, it was never meant to displace kanji (except for little children).

    Not quite. In Japanese, one of the two syllabaries, or phonetic sets – Hiragana - is used for grammatical endings, the verb “to be,” conjunctions, exclamations, etc. while the other - Katakana – is used for foreign words and names. Any Japanese word can be written in hiragana.

    For example:

    食べる (たべる) ( taberu = to eat )
    私は食べている ( Watashi-wa tabete-iru = I am eating. )
    これは食べ物です ( Kore-wa tabemono desu = This is food. )
    まさか! ( Masaka! = No kidding ! )

    シカゴ ( Shikago = Chicago )

    The most reliable way for a non-speaker to distinguish between Chinese and Japanese writing is the regular presence of kana among the kanji in the Japanese, but just dense hanzi in the Chinese.

    Japanese 1st graders learn 80 kanji as 5-year olds. I don’t know what the load is for Chinese kids learning hanzi, but throughout the Orient, beautiful calligraphy is considered one of the high arts.

  227. @Anon

    Not to mention Leibnitz and Archimedes got very very close to integration. It depends on what country you live in. The whole modern rush to publish in a peer reviewed journal is rooted in the claim to have developed calculus. Modern calculus uses Leibnitz’s notation.

    • Replies: @utu
  228. women vs. men

    Maybe this is a bit anecdotal, but women seem to inherently avoid real risk, thus it makes sense that they reap no real rewards. I don’t mean things like wearing the pink blouse to work today instead of the navy one (daring!). I mean more along the lines of trying to engineer an aircraft and putting your own ass in the seat to see if it works. Speaking of which, I assume men also take the cake not just for dying more often from work related injuries, but also in more absurd ways in general, right? It should come with the territory.

    [MORE]

    On the one hand, one must acknowledge that women in the past were probably more committed to/inundated with playing to their strengths in the homemaking and child birthing/rearing departments. I can see how that would detract considerably from their collective ability to achieve much else than the successful upbringing of the next generation. Especially in times where infant/child mortality were so high that you sort of just had to keep putting them out like a conveyor belt. Also explains the nightmarish level of contempt modern women show their own womb today.

    But in the present, it’s hard not to notice that today’s liberated women still seem to set their sights decidedly low. Chiefly on work environments where they can be pretty, dress up, feel smart and special and, of course, litigate until they are payed the same as the men. What women want seems more along the lines of preferential treatment than equality. Rarely aiming to be ‘the first X, Y or Z in the world’, women much prefer to strive to become the ‘first female X, Y or Z in the world’. Tantamount to a participation trophy for their gender. That’s not aiming very high.

    Thus, you find decidedly few feminists today concerned with the gender inequality gap for dirty and dangerous fields of work compared to those cushier, safer, and more socially desirable white collar grade positions.

    Whats more, in order for women to get to where they are, they betrayed and abandoned their own families, entire nations, and the nuclear family unit, occupationally orphaned every future generation of children into the indoctrinating hands of the government’s public school system, doubled the cost of living in America, and slaughtered upwards of 50 MILLION of their own children (and counting) for reasons of convenience and ‘female empowerment’. They’ve even unilaterally weakened their nations’ military standards, just so they could actually meet them and participate to feel special and included. I’m sure the list goes on.

    Ultimately, everything women seem to do with the full agency men foolishly granted them is selfish, emotionally ruled and at the expense of their civilization, including themselves in many cases. As a gender, their defining characteristic is to empathize. Namely with themselves. But also with any manipulative culture of economic opportunists that know how to exploit that empathy and by proxy, the leverage they hold as such a large % of the voter base now that they can vote, towards invasion and colonization efforts under the pretext of seeking ‘refuge’.

    It’s not all women. But the exceptions don’t dictate the rule. Most women seem to dictate their actions based on where they fall on a risk vs attention from others scale while most revolutionary inventions involve considerable risk, be it to their careers, finances, reputations or physical bodies.

    Of course, I could be entirely wrong. I’m certainly no expert. People watching is just an (often morbid) fascination of mine. We are all creatures of habit. Some of those habits are nurture, others appear to be a product of nature. Equality, after all, is ideology, not reality.

    Thus ends my own rant, I guess.
    Thanks for the brain food.

    • Agree: Stan d Mute
  229. This almost sounds reasonable until one realizes that people with average IQ of any gender and of any nation have nothing to do with human achievements. Average IQ tells you about as much as an average fever level in a hospital. Thus, the whole premise of this article (or rant – whatever) is about as valid as flat Earth theory.

  230. Twinkie says:
    @Bliss

    So asians are less prone to risky driving? That’s a good thing. But it’s bad for your argument: it makes the high crash rates in Japan and South Korea even better evidence of low visuospatial IQ in East Asians.

    Reading comprehension! One more time:

    Young drivers who were born in Asian countries were less likely to report engaging in risky driving behaviors than their Australian-born counterparts. The proportion of participants reporting a high level of risky driving was 31.5 percent (95% confidence intervale [CI], 30.8-32.1) among Australian-born drivers compared to 25.6 percent (95% CI, 23.1-28.2) among Asian-born drivers and 30.4 percent (95% CI, 28.4-32.5) among those born in other regions. Asian-born participants had half the risk of a crash as a driver than their Australian-born counterparts (relative risk [RR] 0.55; 95% CI, 0.41-0.75) after adjusting for a number of demographic factors and driving and risk-taking behaviors. The comparative risk was even lower among those aged 17 years (RR 0.29; 95% CI, 0.29-0.75). Risk estimates for people born in other regions did not differ to those for Australian-born respondents. [Boldface mine.]

    For the third time, for those with low verbal IQ! “Asian-born… half the risk of a crash… after adjusting for a number of demographic factors and driving and risk-taking behaviors.”

    • Replies: @Bliss
  231. Twinkie says:
    @Bliss

    Here is the list of Olympic champions in shooting and there is no such domination:

    Shooting events medal count in the last several Olympic Games:
    2004
    1 China (CHN) 4 2 3 9
    2 Russia (RUS) 3 4 3 10
    3 Germany (GER) 2 1 0 3
    United States (USA) 2 1 0 3
    5 Italy (ITA) 1 2 0 3
    6 Australia (AUS) 1 0 1 2
    6 Bulgaria (BUL) 1 0 1 2
    8 Hungary (HUN) 1 0 0 1
    Ukraine (UKR) 1 0 0 1
    United Arab Emirates (UAE) 1 0 0 1

    2008
    1 China (CHN) 5 2 1 8
    2 United States (USA) 2 2 2 6
    3 Czech Republic (CZE) 2 1 0 3
    Ukraine (UKR) 2 1 0 3
    5 Italy (ITA) 1 2 0 3
    6 South Korea (KOR) 1 1 0 2
    7 Finland (FIN) 1 0 1 2
    8 India (IND) 1 0 0 1
    9 Russia (RUS) 0 2 2 4
    10 Germany (GER) 0 1 3 4

    2012
    1 South Korea 3 2 0 5
    2 United States 3 0 1 4
    3 Italy 2 3 0 5
    4 China 2 2 3 7
    5 Belarus 1 0 0 1
    Croatia 1 0 0 1
    Cuba 1 0 0 1
    Great Britain 1 0 0 1
    Romania 1 0 0 1
    10 France 0 1 1 2
    India 0 1 1 2
    Serbia 0 1 1 2
    Slovakia 0 1 1 2

    2016
    1 Italy 4 3 0 7
    2 Germany 3 1 0 4
    3 China 1 2 4 7
    4 South Korea 1 1 0 2
    Vietnam 1 1 0 2
    6. United States 1 0 2 3
    7 Greece 1 0 1 2
    Independent Olympic Athletes 1 0 1 2
    9 Australia 1 0 0 1
    9 Croatia 1 0 0 1

    China was also no. 1 and no. 2, respectively at 2000 and 1996 Summer Games in shooting events. In 1992, China was no. 2 only behind “Unified Team” (12 former Soviet Republics) and South Korea was no. 4, Japan no. 9.

    I’d say this is pretty dominant, especially considering that civilians are basically not allowed to touch guns in East Asia unlike in Europe and North America. Also, medal winners from some non-East Asian countries were of East Asian background (e.g. Felipe Wu of Brazil who won silver at the last Sumer Games).

    There is South Korean domination in Olympic archery though.

    Domination is not enough of a word. South Korea basically wins gold medal every time in archery and it’s a huge upset when it doesn’t once in a blue moon. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archery_at_the_Summer_Olympics#From_1972

    Since modern archery competition began in 1972, South Korea has won more gold medals than the rest of the competition COMBINED (23 out of 40 total).

    But archery and shooting are two of the least popular sports. How can performance by a few individuals in activities with few participants trump performance in an activity like driving which is extremely common, when you are comparing races?

    So blacks (of West African ancestry) dominating the 100 meter dash and whites dominating swimming simply stems from participation selection and has little to do with HBD?

    • Replies: @Bliss
  232. Bliss says:

    Shooting events medal count in the last several Olympic Games……I’d say this is pretty dominant

    You must be arithmetically challenged. Simple addition of gold medals won by race from each of those years shows no east asian domination. It is euro caucasians who dominated, every single year.

    Here is the total number of gold medals won by race in these 4 Olympics: East Asians won 18 gold medals vs 40 for Euro Caucasians.

    In the last Olympics East Asians (including Vietnam) won 3 gold medals vs 11 for Euro Caucasians. Italy alone won more gold medals in 2016 than all East Asians.

    So your endless boasting about your racial domination in shooting events was just endless bullshitting….

    • Replies: @Twinkie
  233. utu says:
    @Philip Owen

    Leibniz pretty much got everything there was to integration.

    • Replies: @Philip Owen
  234. Bliss says:
    @Twinkie

    Since modern archery competition began in 1972, South Korea has won more gold medals than the rest of the competition COMBINED (23 out of 40 total).

    The East Asian (all South Korean) domination in Olympic Archery is on the women’s side and it is truly overwhelming: 17 gold medals vs 3 for Euros.

    It is a very different story for the men. East Asian men (also all South Korean) won 7 gold medals vs 13 for Euro men. No domination here, not even parity.

    How do you reconcile that with your racial/HBD narrative?

  235. dux.ie says:
    @Polish Perspective

    > someone with a verbal IQ of 130 will have a higher mathematical IQ on average than someone with a mathematical IQ of 130 will have a verbal IQ. I do not know if this is true, do you know something about this?

    From the way the proposition is framed it implicity introduces biases from different sub-population IQ attributes. The SAT test is a pretty good proxy for IQ as the scores are directly related to the national cognitive percentile, abide that the Maths and ERW scales have different relationship with the percentiles, i.e. the SatERW scale is inflated where lower SatERW score gives higher percentile (and higher IQverbal) than that from SatMaths (and thus it gives an unfair advantage for natives with English as the first or only language). Thus for IQverbal=130 requires only SatERW=699.9 while IQmaths=130 requires SatMaths=720.9. However, by lowering the bar for SatErw, relatively more those with ESL (English as second language) and high IQmaths are included and that raises the average SatMaths for the IQErw≥130 sub-group.

    On the other hand for SatMaths≥130, the dominant students included tended to be from certain sub-populations with ESL. Hence the average SatErw will be lowered.

    I have a dataset of 7329 self reported SatMath and SatErw scores for university applications. From that the stats are

    Type|N|SatMaths|StdDev
    IQErw≥130|3669|742.8|54.6

    Type|N|SatErw|StdDev
    IQMaths≥130|3610|717.4|62.2

    The proposition seems to be correct.

  236. Zylonet says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    Testosterone is a key part of this equation. I am sure of it based on personal experience. By age 26 I was a trusted adviser to one of the wealthiest men in the nation. My creative intelligence for systematizing business strategies was exceedingly rare. Late in my 20s I suffered an injury to a testicle and my life was instantly transformed. The dynamism that once made me mock everyone for being so boring, so compliant and so lacking in passion was gone, as was my creativity. It has been 15 years and even though I am on TRT, and can manipulate my t-levels as I so desire, it has been more than three years since I had one day where I felt like I did everyday between about ages 15-29. In my readings, it appears that LH may be primary driver of libido; this from a study on trannies I found on pubmed. Since gonadal weight seems to follow the normal Asian-White-African spectrum, we can assume that the rare white guy will be most likely to peak across the various success factors be they intelligence, openness, disagreeableness, dynamism (aka libido/testosterone) and whatever else may matter. Depending on the subject matter, a man need not be in the highest percentiles to reap a compounding effect leading to dynamic results. Anyone who is paying attention will instantly realize the legitimacy of the brains vs brawn divide, so if you give a very smart man, some degree of openness, some degree of disagreeableness and some degree of perversion then the sky is the limit. Jews are one such people. People who disregard this are missing something that is real; I have lived it. As I came to terms with it, I remember thinking, “this is what it must be like to be average.” Removing the perversion/lust just makes the system slow down. There is no longer sex in the thought. This is great for daily work, but it’s not the stuff dreams are made of.

    I believe I was one of the first to remark on this “testicular role” as some type of weird driver of dynamic intellect, but I also recall Jason Malloy making similar observations. Black people have easily the greatest IDGAF attitude and also an unmatched dynamic creativity. There are no JB Smooves in China or Europe. I am sure you have to have a strong desire to screw non-stop in order to be this funny:

    • LOL: utu
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
  237. Bliss says:

    So blacks (of West African ancestry) dominating the 100 meter dash…..has little to do with HBD?

    This is a false comparison. Practically every human knows how to run from childhood, and all races/ethnicities participate in running competitions. While Archery is a tiny marginal sport in which few nations compete. You can’t draw broad racial conclusions from such an event.

    The reason why South Korea is so over-represented in Olympic Archery is more culture than HBD:

    https://www.bbc.com/sport/olympics/18499167

    Koreans are introduced to archery at primary school, with talented children receiving up to two hours training a day. The less able are then weeded out at middle school, high school and university level until the very best are hired as adults by the company teams run by organisations such as car manufacturer Hyundai.

    Approximately 30% of the Korean Archery Association’s (KAA) budget comes from the country’s Olympic Committee, but the main financial strength of the system is from these 33 company teams who provide a wage and a pension to archers employed solely to compete for them.

    While British archers must meet strict performance criteria to be given funding, the vast majority of professional Korean archers will continue to receive payment without getting anywhere near the national team.

    This set-up ensures that, while nearly every other nation competing at London 2012 can count the number of elite archers on one hand, Korea’s total currently stands at 147.

    There is no reason to think that South Koreans would continue to be over-represented in Archery if many other nations adopted a similar culture.

  238. myself says:
    @Lars Porsena

    I think there is something to this idea.

    I think it explains perhaps not all, but a great deal of the reason for East Asian historical stagnation.

    What happened in Eastern Eurasia, under the crushing dominance of Chinese civilization, was something like what would have occurred in Europe, North Africa and the Levant had the Roman Empire the same level of institutional resilience, ethno-cultural cohesion and general ability to regenerate, as the Chinese state.

    Sometimes, ethnic assimilation, organization and efficiency can succeed too well, and therefore go too far. The civilization’s structure becomes so well-formed that it becomes rigid, and therefore dynamism is not merely neglected but often brutally suppressed.

    This then results in a closing of the civilizational/racial mind, and a sense of having reached the “End of History”. The End of History – the idea that you already have all the answers, and have already mastered the hardest of all challenges – specifically that you have the “secret immutable formula of civilizational success”, there is nothing more in the universe worth learning, and everything else involves an application of what you already know regarding society and culture.

    “The End of History” – sound familiar? It should, and I am not merely applying it to Asians in the above paragraph.

    I am no advocate of either “diversity” nor of “identity”. As ever, the answer lies in harmonious balancing. the reconciling of opposites.

    Take the case of the Mediterranean basin, in Western Eurasia. By roughly 480 BC, the Greeks had already attained the pre-modern peak in most areas. Rome would preserve and replicate their methods, far surpassing classical Greece in organization, efficiency and scale, but not bettering them in knowledge. After Rome was the long regression. It was only really around 1500, that we witnessed “the opening of the European mind”, and Western civilization was truly born.

    Now, imagine if, by dint of resilience, organization and cohesion, Rome had managed to IMPOSE the Pax Romana throughout its empire for another THOUSAND years. Suppose that instead ot falling, never to rise again, in 476 AD, Rome instead was able to mount a successful military and economic counter-offensive against its enemies, and rule until not merely 1500 AD, but until 1912!

    And in all that time, Roman orthodoxy, Roman classical modes of thought, Roman philosophies and “the Roman way” overshadowed all competition. The result would have been the End of History for Western Eurasia – cultural/racial stagnation and demoralization.

    IMHO, this has, until very very recently, held back Eastern Eurasia.

    • Agree: Twinkie
    • Replies: @Twinkie
    , @Philip Owen
  239. Twinkie says:
    @Bliss

    You must be arithmetically challenged. Simple addition of gold medals won by race from each of those years shows no east asian domination. It is euro caucasians who dominated, every single year.

    You realize that East Asians only field a grand total of THREE national shooting teams, right? You know, as opposed to dozens of European teams. Despite that, one of those teams won the gold in three of the last four Summer Games. If abilities were equally distributed, the demographic group with more teams would produce more winners. Think about this simple probability calculation for a moment with your awesome arithmetic ability.

    It is a very different story for the men. East Asian men (also all South Korean) won 7 gold medals vs 13 for Euro men. No domination here, not even parity.

    Let me get this straight. Even only counting the men, a country with 40-50 million people – ONE team – has won 35% of the total gold medals in the whole world in modern history and you don’t think that’s a dominating performance?

    There is no reason to think that South Koreans would continue to be over-represented in Archery if many other nations adopted a similar culture.

    Korean excellence in archery has a VERY LONG history. In ancient times, people who lived to the east of China proper (some of who eventually became Koreans) were called “Dongyi” – “Eastern bowmen.”

    Government funding helps, but no amount of funding can produce world-class talent. Money can only nurture that talent, not create it.

    Archery ability is correlated well to visuospatial ability, as is shooting firearms(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166432812000381). It’s not simply a matter of aiming well. Unlike in the movies (where “snipers” put the X on the target and press the trigger), in real life, projectiles have a parabolic curve and therefore have two intersections with the sight. An archer or a shooter needs to do instant calculations in his brain of the distance to the target, the arc of fire, the velocity of the projectile as well as environmental conditions (wind direction and velocity, temperature, altitude, barometric pressure, etc… even the curvature of the earth in the case of long distance shooting).

    So your endless boasting about your racial domination in shooting events was just endless bullshitting….

    So, the very few East Asian teams keep winning gold medals, but it’s just “bullshit” in your made-up world. Even in this country, where Asians are only 5% of the population (with East Asians being roughly half of that), they excel in shooting. I bet you didn’t know that MIT has a shooting team (with East Asians frequently making up half or more team members) and that it has been top-ranked, often beating even the military service academies.

    This is reality. It’s not boasting – not any more than black people talking about being good at football and basketball.

    This is a false comparison. Practically every human knows how to run from childhood, and all races/ethnicities participate in running competitions.

    You missed the point. East Asians can be funded billions and they will not produce 100 meter dash winners (at least not consistently, excepting a very rare freak or genetically-enhanced person) – they are just not biomechanically advantaged to produce elite explosive short-distance runners (they do better in very long distance and have produced some Marathon winners). Likewise, you can spend a billion dollars on people with low visuospatial ability and won’t be able to produce elite archers and shooters (it’s for the same reason that, while most women can be trained to be competent shooters, they can’t match men in shooting ability at the elite level).

    There is no reason to think that South Koreans would continue to be over-represented in Archery if many other nations adopted a similar culture.

    You don’t seem to understand that money flows to what people are good at (people in general like making winners with their resources) and the culture reflects this. It’s not just Koreans. Lots of countries have this kind of athlete-building system (e.g. Cubans and boxing, Australians and swimming, Chinese with gymnastics, Japanese with amateur wrestling and Judo, etc.). Even we Americans invest billions in SOME sports – American football and basketball (utilizing our black population) and produce the world’s best football and basketball players.

    By the way, no response to this?

    Asian-born participants had half the risk of a crash as a driver than their Australian-born counterparts (relative risk [RR] 0.55; 95% CI, 0.41-0.75) after adjusting for a number of demographic factors and driving and risk-taking behaviors. [Boldfaces mine.]

    • Replies: @Bliss
    , @Bliss
  240. Twinkie says:
    @myself

    What happened in Eastern Eurasia, under the crushing dominance of Chinese civilization, was something like what would have occurred in Europe, North Africa and the Levant had the Roman Empire the same level of institutional resilience, ethno-cultural cohesion and general ability to regenerate, as the Chinese state.

    Sometimes, ethnic assimilation, organization and efficiency can succeed too well, and therefore go too far. The civilization’s structure becomes so well-formed that it becomes rigid, and therefore dynamism is not merely neglected but often brutally suppressed.

    This is often brought up when the European Age of Discovery (and Sailing) is discussed. Why didn’t the Chinese dominate the seas when they had better maritime technology? For example, their ships had bulkheads since the 5th century possibly and definitely by the 12th while they did not spread to European shipbuilding until the late 18th to early 19th centuries.

    By now, most well-read people in the West are aware of the epic journeys of Admiral Zheng He (who reached Africa and the Middle East), whose legacy was destroyed by the agrarian mandarins in control of the Ming central government – to the extent that they had the books and documents relating to shipbuilding and maritime travel burned and severely restricted anything beyond coastal trade.

    Therein lies a lesson about centralization – it has early advantages engendered by unity of purpose and economy of scale, but mistakes made at the center by a few can reverberate and retard the whole civilization in the long-run. The location of the Sinic civilization of East Asia worsened this tendency since it was isolated away from the rest of Eurasia while, within the region, there were few barriers to centralization resulting in a mammoth, contiguous civilization of several thousand years.

    In contrast, Europe, especially Northwest Europe, had a late start, but benefitted greatly from the geography – being located close to the cradle of human civilization and therefore early inventions and thoughts as well as having many barriers (mountains and rivers) that checked the emergence of a single hegemon all the while still allowing for transmissions of useful technologies (rivers and the Mediterranean can be barriers to control as well as facilitators of communication). This seems to have helped create numerous independent powers that increased the overall competition (which means wars) that in turn accelerated quest for competitive advantages (inventions and adoption of novel technologies).

    • Replies: @notanon
    , @Wizard of Oz
  241. Bliss says:
    @Twinkie

    Asian-born… half the risk of a crash… after adjusting for a number of demographic factors and driving and risk-taking behaviors.

    1. They did not adjust for a major cause of crashes: driving while drunk and/or drugged.

    2. They did not adjust for race. We are comparing East Asians here not all Asians, who in Australia can be from South and Southeast Asia as well.

    3. They didn’t adjust for environment: city, suburb, rural, outback. The higher the population density the lower the risk of crashing.

    4. It doesn’t say what metric they used to measure the risk of a crash. If it’s not the correct metric: crashes per miles driven then its useless.

    Why are you avoiding the question: if east asians tend to be more risk averse and rule abiding then doesn’t the higher crash rate in Japan and South Korea look even worse when comparing to the U.K.?

  242. Bliss says:
    @Twinkie

    You realize that East Asians only field a grand total of THREE national shooting teams, right?

    Do you realize that one of those teams represents 1400 billion people or almost twice the population of Europe?

    If abilities were equally distributed, the demographic group with more teams would produce more winners.

    Irrational nonsense. The demographic group with more people would produce more winners.

    you can spend a billion dollars on people with low visuospatial ability and won’t be able to produce elite archers and shooters

    Don’t flatter yourself. Even a country like India with by far the lowest number of Olympic medals per capita has beat South Korea at it’s own game in the Olympics. (this info is in my link above).

    Driving requires better visuospatial IQ than archery and the data shows very high crash rates in South Korea

    • Replies: @Bliss
    , @Twinkie
  243. myself says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    Isn’t that a picture of a traffic jam in China, the one that stretched over 200 miles?

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
  244. Bliss says:
    @Okechukwu

    Thanks. I enjoy reading your posts too.

  245. myself says:

    I can’t speak for other Asians, but it seems to me that Mainland Chinese are fast becoming a different psychological breed, perhaps unconsciously. More risk taking, less emphasis on what society thinks wise.

    There was a case of a guy climbing a skyscraper a while back, and of course, to make it noteworthy, he was doing it without safety equipment. Not sponsored either, just doing it to do it, and to show he could. Something went wrong, he fell to his death in full public view.

    The interesting part was the reaction to the whole stunt. It was a topic of discussion, with a few calling the man dumb.

    But for the most part, people said the dead man had wanted to live his life and make his own mark in the world, and for that, he HAD to take a calculated risk. He was not stupid, he was “brave and daring”. The gist was that he played the odds, and although he lost, most people said they were ready to play the odds as well, in their own lives.

    Comment from an acquaintance: “Is only up to you, you will win or you will lose, but you have to decide your own life”.

    It’s no longer Confucian China.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
  246. Bliss says:
    @Twinkie

    a country with 40-50 million people – ONE team – has won 35% of the total gold medals in the whole world in modern history and you don’t think that’s a dominating performance?

    You really are stupid. And incorrigibly dishonest. The discussion was about races and HBD, not about nation states. And you were claiming racial superiority. East Asians number ~1600 million. That’s hundreds of millions more than Euro Caucasians, yet the Euros won almost double the gold medals in that category.

    What do you make of Italy winning twice as many shooting gold medals in the 2016 Olympics than China and South Korea combined? That’s a team representing 60 million people beating 2 teams representing 1450 million East Asians. Are you duly impressed? Their visuospatial IQ must be off the charts, right?

    The only reason South Korea does so well in archery is the culture. If it is racial as you claim, China would be trouncing the Koreans in the Olympics.

    Lots of countries have this kind of athlete-building system

    And it pays off. South Korea picked a very weakly contested event and it is paying off handsomely. But for how long?

    It wasn’t so long ago that South Korea used to dominate in Taekwondo. Not any more. Same thing will happen in Archery eventually.

  247. Bliss says:
    @Art

    East Asians (Chinese, Koreans, Japanese) tend to have larger brains and larger visuospatial IQs than Caucasians

    The Japanese have smaller brains than the Turkic people of Central Asia, who have smaller brains than the Chinese, who have smaller brains than the Siberians.

    • Replies: @myself
    , @j2
    , @res
  248. Bliss says:
    @Bliss

    Even a country like India with by far the lowest number of Olympic medals per capita has beat South Korea at it’s own game in the Olympics

    Oops. That was actually in the 2011 World Championship, not the Olympics. India was 2nd in the Women’s Team Event and South Korea was 3rd.

  249. myself says:
    @Bliss

    If that map is accurate, it would actually be somewhat explanatory of certain portions of recorded human history.

    Take the given color map, and overlay the world’s cultures upon it.

    Notice specifically that Eastern Mongolia, homeland of history’s most successful conquering tribes, is right within the deep blue portion of the largest brain size category, on its south-eastern tip just north-west of Beijing. (Beijing itself seems to be in the transition zone.)

    Maybe the nomad barbarians, though lacking in infrastructure, production and classical technology, had very high native IQs owing to brain size, which could not have hurt them in warmaking – though I have no idea if it actually helped them, per se.

    Correlation is not causation, of course, but it seemed interesting to point out.

    • Replies: @notanon
    , @Bliss
  250. notanon says:
    @myself

    i think there were two stages in selecting for intelligence

    the first (HG) stage where IQ is more or less directly related to latitude (colder winters) (less so in the west cos gulf stream?)

    the second (farmer) stage where civilization itself applied selection pressure and civilization starting in the mid-latitudes where farming was viable earliest.

    so i think over time
    - northern Eurasian big head HGs were the smartest (relatively – still pretty dumb maybe)
    - with farming, people in the mid-latitudes overtook them and became the smartest
    - as farming gradually became viable further north the big head peoples got civilization smarts added to their big head advantage

    • Replies: @res
  251. notanon says:
    @Twinkie

    yes – i think Britain’s policy of preventing a single dominant European power although done for selfish reasons was ultimately beneficial for that reason.

  252. notanon says:
    @Stan d Mute

    It’s a special and extreme kind of non-conformity isn’t it?

    i think that would neatly explain the male/female split (and also provide a possible explanation for why great early civilizations stagnated)

  253. @Sunbeam

    Storytelling is profitable, especially storytelling that profits from ameliorating mortality salience, i.e., the fear of death, per Terror Management Theory.

    Jewish storytellers in the Jew Testament have convinced Whites that Jews are the means to remain alive forever.

    We worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews.” John 4:22

    From life-extension vitamin supplements to doctors to religion, the white man will spend money to assuage his mortality salience by saving him from death.

    “For if the Gentiles have shared in the Jews’ spiritual blessings, they owe it to the Jews to share with them their material blessings.” Romans 15:27

    There is American foreign aid policy in a nutshell. $$cha-ching!$$ http://explorer.usaid.gov/cd/ISR

    And that is, at least one way, how verbal skills are important for economic productivity.

  254. j2 says:
    @Bliss

    The map shows cranial capacity, not the brain size (volume or weight). There is a conversion, but it may differ in different populations.

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  255. Okechukwu says:
    @j2

    The map shows cranial capacity, not the brain size (volume or weight). There is a conversion, but it may differ in different populations.

    Cranial capacity is brain size. Duh… Cranial capacity denotes the capacity of the cranium to house a brain of a certain size and weight. Thus the terms are interchangeable.

    • Replies: @j2
  256. @myself

    The brutality of the last hundred years or so has served as a kind of bottleneck with consequences to the personality of the population, I do believe.

    Well, that and increased red meat consumption could have increased testosterone levels. Who knows, really?

    • Replies: @Talha
  257. Talha says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    Excellent point here – I do not know of any population’s culture that would not have been drastically changed by what the Chinese went through.

    Peace.

  258. Twinkie says:
    @Bliss

    Irrational nonsense. The demographic group with more people would produce more winners.

    So you have both low verbal IQ AND quantitative IQ. Let me write in very small words, so you could – possibly – understand.

    Assume race A and race B. Both groups have identically distributed talent in a game. So when a team from group A competes with one from group B, the chance of victory is even (50% – 50%).

    There is only one team from race A and three teams from race B (total of four teams). The chance of that ONE team from race A winning the championship is 25% (50% each round, so 0.5 x 0.5 = 0.25). The chance of one of the three teams from race B winning the championship is 75%.

    So even the ability is distributed identically, if race B gets to field three teams to race A’s one, the latter gets only 25% of winning the championship.

    Now, let’s change the numbers. Let’s say race A still only gets one team, but it is SUPERIOR to any team from race B (whether because it has a much larger population and/or because it is genetically more gifted). Let’s say it now has a 2-to-1 advantage in ability (which is HUGE). So at every round, its chance of beating another team is 66%. Now, though, race B fields 15 teams (total of 16 teams).

    At this point, despite the one team from race A being far superior than any team from race B, its chance of winning the championship is only 0.66 x 0.66 x 0.66 x 0.66 = 0.19, only 19%. So, despite the one team from race A being much superior to any team from race B, the latter being able to field 15 teams, allows one of its teams to win the championship 81% of the time while the team from A only has 19% of winning the championship (of course, the chance of one SPECIFIC team from race B winning the championship is lower than 19%). So in this scenario, if the one team from race A wins the championship more than 1/16th of the time (0.0625 or 6% rounded up), it is demonstrating a clear ability advantage (and it would at 19% chance of winning).

    Now do you see why, despite the smaller overall population, Europeans being able to field dozens of separate teams confers a large advantage to a European team winning the whole thing versus East Asians who only field three (or four, if Taiwan is included) teams – even if the East Asians had a greater genetic advantage for a particular sport?

    What do you make of Italy winning twice as many shooting gold medals in the 2016

    South Korea just beat Germany 2-0 at the latest World Cup. Does that mean South Korea is better at soccer than Germany? You don’t realize that n=4 is much more reliable and accurate than n=1? Or do you just cherry pick the ONE year that a non-East Asian team won, because you are sadly desperate. I provided you the records for the last FOUR Summer Olympics. In three of those four, an East Asian team had the greatest gold medal count in shooting.

    Driving requires better visuospatial IQ than archery

    Maybe or maybe not. I have not seen any study that indicates either. Have you? But keep making things up as you go along.

    the data shows very high crash rates in South Korea

    Bliss logic: South and Southeast Asians have higher crash rates than East Asians = different environments!

    East Asians have higher rates than Australians = bad East Asian driving ability/low visuospatial IQ!

    East Asians in Australia have lower rates than Australians in Australia = different environments!

    They didn’t adjust for environment: city, suburb, rural, outback. The higher the population density the lower the risk of crashing.

    The Australian study controlled for demographic factors such as drivers’ “age, sex, socio-economic status, rurality of residence…” as well as risky behaviors.

    It doesn’t say what metric they used to measure the risk of a crash. If it’s not the correct metric: crashes per miles driven then its useless.

    It compared crashes versus licensed drivers, not the overall population.

    • Replies: @Bliss
    , @Bliss
  259. @
    Christianity’s influence in late Antiquity was highly negative, helping push the Roman sphere further into obscurantism. It did play a role in conserving knowledge during the Dark Ages, and in advancing knowledge after 1100, but it’s not clear how it did that, or promoted literacy

    Western people believe in a fairy tale: as if there was a great civilization around The Mediterranean sea, and than The Dark Age came into Germany and England!? The truth is that the civilization was here, and the darkness there. North peoples went into the history, with their own darkness, but South continued living its civilized lives.

    The Byzantine Emporium lasted for next 1000 years after the fall of Rome – only the capital was moved to Constantinople, and Greeks went into a power. Byzantine society guarded after all Ancient Era values, during 1000 years it was modern-ruled Empire.

    Arabians and Persians also succeeded the benefits of Ancient Era.

  260. Bliss says:
    @Twinkie

    Assume race A and race B. Both groups have identically distributed talent in a game. So when a team from group A competes with one from group B, the chance of victory is even (50% – 50%).

    Nonsense. If two races produced identically talented archers at the same rate, the more numerous race would “produce more winners” every time. Not 50% of the time.

    There is no limit to team size in the Olympics. The gold medals won would be proportional to the size of the teams. The number of teams is irrelevant. It is idiotic of you to think that dividing a group of contestants into many teams magically gives it an advantage over a larger group of equally talented contestants.

    Or do you just cherry pick the ONE year that a non-East Asian team won, because you are sadly desperate.

    Lol. It is your sad, stubborn desperation to prove your racial superiority with a cherry picked, weakly contested little sport that is so laughably pathetic. It has already been proven that you lied about east asian domination in Olympic shooting. All you are left with here is a few years of domination in the women’s Archery event. Big deal.

    Maybe or maybe not. I have not seen any study that indicates either.

    Explain how shooting arrows at a fixed target from a fixed position requires higher visuospatial IQ than driving a car. All the ball sports must require higher visuospatial IQ than archery. You are latching on to archery as if it is the definitive proof of superior East Asian visuospatial IQ. And thereby making a fool of yourself.

  261. Bliss says:
    @Twinkie

    It compared crashes versus licensed drivers, not the overall population.

    That’s a hell of a lot better than the metric you and Chieh were clinging to, but not nearly as good as the metric used in the far more detailed data I provided which shows much higher rates of fatal and injury crashes in Japan and South Korea.

    That data uses the correct metric (fatal and injury crashes per distance driven) and therefore trumps all the bullshit data you and Chieh think disproves it. It was dumb or dishonest of you to insist that fatal crashes per 100,000 people was the better metric.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
  262. Twinkie says:
    @Bliss

    Nonsense. If two races produced identically talented archers at the same rate, the more numerous race would “produce more winners” every time. Not 50% of the time.

    That first example had two races with identical population sizes and identical ability. The only difference being the number of teams. It’s a “control” example, so you can grasp what I am talking about. Note that when the two races have the same attributes (population size and ability or whatever the factors that produce victory in a match), the race that is fielding only one team wins 25% of the time and the other race that fields three teams wins 75% of the time (since there are only four teams total, there are two rounds to win championship, hence the one team from race A has 0.5 x 0.5 = 0.25 or 25% chance of winning the final match).

    The next example is the one in which better models what is going on. You don’t seem to understand this basic probability math that one of my children in junior high school does. Note the boldfaced text. Once again:

    Let’s say race A still only gets one team, but it is SUPERIOR to any team from race B (whether because it has a much larger population and/or because it is genetically more gifted). Let’s say it now has a 2-to-1 advantage in ability (which is HUGE). So at every round, its chance of beating another team is 66% [vs. 33%]. Now, though, race B fields 15 teams (total of 16 teams). [16 teams means 4 rounds to win the final match.]

    At this point, despite the one team from race A being far superior than any team from race B, its chance of winning the championship is only 0.66 x 0.66 x 0.66 x 0.66 = 0.19, only 19%. So, despite the one team from race A being much superior to any team from race B, the latter being able to field 15 teams, allows one of its teams to win the championship 81% of the time while the team from A only has 19% of winning the championship (of course, the chance of one SPECIFIC team from race B winning the championship is lower than 19%). So in this scenario, if the one team from race A wins the championship more than 1/16th of the time (0.0625 or 6% rounded up), it is demonstrating a clear ability advantage (and it would at 19% chance of winning).

    Now do you see why, despite the smaller overall population, Europeans being able to field dozens of separate teams confers a large advantage to a European team winning the whole thing versus East Asians who only field three (or four, if Taiwan is included) teams – even if the East Asians had a greater genetic advantage for a particular sport?

    Do you get it or do you need me to explain in elementary school terms now?

    There is no limit to team size in the Olympics.

    Yes, there is. Moreover, you cannot field two national teams (for male team and female team contests) in archery (as is the case in many other events).

    That data uses the correct metric (fatal and injury crashes per distance driven)

    Controlling for demographic and risk factors, Asian-born drivers in Australia were half as likely to crash as native-born Australians. With that much difference, the latter would have to drive twice as many miles per licensed driver as the former to have the same rate of crashes per licensed driver. That’s highly improbable.

    much higher rates of fatal and injury crashes in Japan and South Korea.

    For the umpteenth time, simply comparing crashes per miles driven across countries doesn’t control for ANY other relevant variables (sex, age, socio-economic status, vehicle mix, speed limit, enforcement, regulations, drunk-driving rates, etc.). You seem to understand this concept of controlling for variable very well when I brought up the differences in fatal crash rates in other Asian countries vs. Japan/South Korea, but that understanding seems to disappear when comparing the latter to yet other countries. You know that just about EVERYONE else here who reads this can see you playing this very transparent “variables for me, but not for thee” game, right?

    • Replies: @Bliss
    , @Bliss
  263. j2 says:
    @Okechukwu

    Just to show that the terms are not quite interchangeable, when you get older your brain shrinks but your skull does not, so you will have a smaller brain in the same skull. It follows that populations in developed countries have a larger portion of old people, whose brains are smaller, thus they have in average smaller brains than the cranial capacity shows when compared to a country with younger population. But of course I did not mean the age issue. I meant that it is not obvious that for all human populations the same percentage of the cranial capacity is filled with brain tissue in the same age. It may be so, may be not. I do not know if there are Magnetic Resonance Images of Siberian population’s brains.

    What was interesting in the article was that verbal IQ is not correlated with the brain size. Verbal IQ is naturally notoriously environment dependent (it depends on vocabulary and knowledge and vocabulary depends on the language and culture), but I have the experience that all Mediterranean people have the potential for higher verbal IQ and that it could be associated with ASPM gene haplotype D. ASPM variants do not influence IQ or brain size according to some studies, but according to other they do influence vocabulary and very possibly the sweep was connected with written language. It may be from here Jews ultimately derive the potential for a verbal IQ skew, which is made explicit by cultural issues, and probably other populations of the area have a similar potential.

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  264. @Zylonet

    An excellent example of a genetic factor modulated by environmental factors.

    Are Jews perverted? Greasy Williams isn’t.

  265. Okechukwu says:
    @j2

    It follows that populations in developed countries have a larger portion of old people, whose brains are smaller, thus they have in average smaller brains than the cranial capacity shows when compared to a country with younger population.

    If a study doesn’t control for a major variable like age then it’s a moot point, as the study is garbage.

    I meant that it is not obvious that for all human populations the same percentage of the cranial capacity is filled with brain tissue in the same age.

    On what information are you basing this on? You’re wrong. The cranium stores the brain in exactly the same way in every human.

    What was interesting in the article was that verbal IQ is not correlated with the brain size.

    IQ is garbage, as is brain size. Some Africans speak 4-6 languages, including an exquisite command of English. I don’t see how someone who speaks multiple languages is going to have a lower verbal IQ than someone who speaks only one, assuming the test is credible.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  266. @Twinkie

    I am familiar with and sympathetic to this explanation of “The European Miracle” (Cf. Eric Jones) but reading your comment makes me wonder about Europe’s geographical advantages (for competition) compared to China. Given China’s great rivers and mountains I would be pleased to read a detailed comparison of European and Chinese geography so far as relevant to this thesis.

    I recall John Derbyshire quoting some Chinese scholar’s lament that China had not experienced the Renaisance and Reformation – maybe adding the Enlightenment. Anyway the point was the lack of such cultural events. Maybe we should regard 500 years in 2500 as susceptible to large effects from a few chance factors coming together rather than to be explained, for example, by the massive centralizing and originality crushing effects of the Mandarin dominated empire.

  267. @Okechukwu

    Whenever someone is referred to as speaking X (4 or5+) languages I wonder about two things. One is what the vocabulary size is in each language (personally as well as for all language speakers: think of Aboriginal languages with no writing). The other is how well each language is spoken, especially given the need to keep up the use of a language to remain fluent.

    How do these tests apply in Africa?

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  268. @utu

    No commas before an And. Sentence construction could have been better. Full Stop instead of And.

    • Replies: @utu
  269. @myself

    There were important european inventions throughout the medieval period. horse collars, lenses, clocks. There are large books on the subject. The Euros also borrowed from China and did more with it.

    • Replies: @myself
  270. utu says:
    @Philip Owen

    Are you saying that Leibniz interpunction was bad?

    • Replies: @Philip Owen
  271. @utu

    No. It is the one that prevailed.

  272. Okechukwu says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Whenever someone is referred to as speaking X (4 or5+) languages I wonder about two things. One is what the vocabulary size is in each language (personally as well as for all language speakers: think of Aboriginal languages with no writing). The other is how well each language is spoken, especially given the need to keep up the use of a language to remain fluent.

    My mother has a deep and vast vocabulary in every language she speaks. But I see your point. My wife is German, and although she’s very proficient in English, sometimes she surprises me with words and concepts she doesn’t understand. You just take it for granted as a native English speaker that people should know these things, but it isn’t always the case.

  273. Bliss says:
    @Twinkie

    That first example had two races with identical population sizes and identical ability. The only difference being the number of teams.

    The number of teams is irrelevant in that scenario. If Europeans field 3 teams of 5 archers each while East Asians field 15 equally skilled archers in a single team the two races will have exactly the same result. It is utterly idiotic of you to think that the Europeans would win three times as much. Unbelievably stupid.

    So, despite the one team from race A being much superior to any team from race B, the latter being able to field 15 teams, allows one of its teams to win the championship 81% of the time while the team from A only has 19% of winning the championship

    Lol. You must be retarded. A much superior archery team will always beat any number of much inferior teams. You keep yakking about probabilities without realizing that in your idealized scenario there are no probabilities. The archers are all equally skilled. The only variable is the number of teams.

    Yes, there is. Moreover, you cannot field two national teams (for male team and female team contests) in archery (as is the case in many other events).

    There is no theoretical limit to the total size (in all sports) of national teams. Since this is an idealized scenario imagine the national teams are competing only in archery.

    Now do you see why, despite the smaller overall population, Europeans being able to field dozens of separate teams confers a large advantage to a European team winning the whole thing versus East Asians who only field three (or four, if Taiwan is included) teams – even if the East Asians had a greater genetic advantage for a particular sport?

    Anyone who sees that will have to be as stupid as you. You are seriously deluded if you think you have proven East Asian “genetic advantage” with your bullshit arguments.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
  274. Bliss says:
    @Twinkie

    Controlling for demographic and risk factors, Asian-born drivers in Australia were half as likely to crash as native-born Australians. With that much difference, the latter would have to drive twice as many miles per licensed driver as the former to have the same rate of crashes per licensed driver. That’s highly improbable.

    Firstly it doesn’t control for the most relevant demographic factor: East Asian origin. Secondly, it is not at all improbable that foreign-born asians drive that much less than native Australians. Thirdly, it doesn’t control for drunk driving, Fourthly, the number of licensed drivers is nowhere near as good a metric as miles driven.

    simply comparing crashes per miles driven across countries doesn’t control for ANY other relevant variables (sex, age, socio-economic status, vehicle mix, speed limit, enforcement, regulations, drunk-driving rates, etc.)

    The data was comparing developed countries in their entirety. You can nitpick all you want but that is the best data presented here by far and it uses the best metric available. And it clearly shows that Japanese and South Koreans are worse drivers than west europeans. And that is without controlling for crashes due to drunk driving.

    This chart shows that South Korea has a slightly higher rate of deaths due to drunk driving than the U.K. yet as I showed earlier it has multiple times the total rate of fatal crashes. Japan does not even make the chart, probably because it has the strictest rules against drinking and driving, yet it has a substantially higher rate of fatal crashes than the UK.

    • Replies: @Bliss
  275. Bliss says:
    @myself

    Correlation is not causation, of course

    Where did you see the correlation between brain size and IQ in that map? Look at UK and Japan for example.

    The Ashkenazi jews who are supposed to have the highest IQ are not known to have the biggest heads. In fact the smartest Ashkenazi Jew, Einstein, was found to have a very small brain (well below the human average). On the other hand Siberians, Eskimos etc have the biggest brains but are not known for their intelligence.

    • Replies: @res
  276. res says:
    @Bliss

    Since you like that graphic so much, let’s at least include the source here: Brain Size, Cranial Morphology, Climate, and Time Machines

    https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/203138

    PDF at http://syslearn.oregonstate.edu/instruction/anth/smith/TimeMach1984.pdf

    j2 makes a useful point:

    The map shows cranial capacity, not the brain size (volume or weight). There is a conversion, but it may differ in different populations.

    A French paper about the relationship of brain size and cranial capacity: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20229240

    I have not been able to find anything looking at if/how the relationship of cranial capacity with brain size varies by race, but this has some references which might be worth following: https://abc102.wordpress.com/2011/02/17/brain-size-and-correlates-with-iq/

    Nonetheless, the relatively low cranial capacity of the Japanese in relation to their measured IQ is an interesting anomaly. I still need to get around looking at a scatterplot of Rindermann’s cranial capacity and IQ data by country to see just how much of an outlier Japan is.

    • Replies: @j2
  277. res says:
    @notanon

    That is an interesting idea. Especially since the paper behind Bliss’s map posits a non-IQ cold weather cranial capacity explanation AFAICT.

    Perhaps cranial capacity was selected for by cold winters while agriculture (larger civilizations) selected for more efficient brain functioning?

  278. res says:
    @Bliss

    Where did you see the correlation between brain size and IQ in that map? Look at UK and Japan for example.

    I love the way you think exceptions disprove correlations. You really are as quantitatively inept as Twinkie is saying.

    Rindermann found a correlation of cranial capacity with IQ by country of 0.77: https://www.unz.com/jthompson/who-are-the-iq-experts/#comment-2409422

    Since I told you this less than a week ago you really aren’t very good at learning, either.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    , @Bliss
  279. myself says:
    @Philip Owen

    The Euros also borrowed from China and did more with it

    It’s a good thing to recognize if something’s better than what you currently have, and then to copy it and run with it.

    Been happening all throughout history, and will keep happening basically forever.

    Would you re-invent the wheel? You’d be stupid to do so.

  280. @Thorfinnsson

    …employees misunderstand very simple instructions…

    I went to India once on business. Three of us were getting a car at our nice hotel to go to a meeting. Our four bags were on the sidewalk by the lobby and we were telling the porters that we needed an SUV parked nearby due to the volume of our luggage – it was obvious the bags weren’t going to fit into a trunk of a sedan which was also one of the cars offered by the hotel. But the porters kept insisting that our bags were going to fit. After trying unsuccessfully for 5 or 10 minutes to fit our bags into the trunk of the sedan in any orientation possible (not the handles out, of course; wheels out), they gave up and put our bags in the SUV.

    Our parting words were “we told you so.” And to think they did this for a living…

  281. Twinkie says:
    @Bliss

    The number of teams is irrelevant in that scenario. If Europeans field 3 teams of 5 archers each while East Asians field 15 equally skilled archers in a single team the two races will have exactly the same result. It is utterly idiotic of you to think that the Europeans would win three times as much. Unbelievably stupid…

    There is no theoretical limit to the total size (in all sports) of national teams.

    Hey, genius: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archery_at_the_Summer_Olympics#Qualification

    Qualification spots in archery are allotted to National Olympic Committees rather than to individual athletes. The minimum age for an Olympic archer is 16. There are two ways an NOC may earn qualification spots: by team or by individual. For each gender, an NOC that earns a team qualification spot may send three archers to compete in that team event; each archer also competes in the individual competition. NOCs that earn individual qualification spots are limited to a single entry in the individual event. [Boldfaces mine.]

    The maximum number of archers allowed per national team at the Summer Games is six. Most Olympic sports limit the number of athletes who can compete for each country, precisely so that countries with large populations and resources don’t dominate the Games even more than they already do by simply “spamming” the Games with huge numbers of athletes. Big countries still attempt to maximize the number of athletes (and hopefully medals) by participating in a large number of sports, rather than sending 1,000 athletes for one sport, because the latter is not allowed.

    Lol. You must be retarded. A much superior archery team will always beat any number of much inferior teams. You keep yakking about probabilities without realizing that in your idealized scenario there are no probabilities.

    There is always an element of chance in sports and games. Otherwise, how did South Korea’s soccer team just beat the German team? Does that result mean that South Koreans are better at soccer than Germans? Indeed, how do the bookies in Vegas make money without constructing probability models based (mostly) on respective abilities?

    Do you really not understand the scenario 2 above (at junior high school math level) or are you pretending not to understand? In the second scenario, I gave the one team from race A a two-to-one advantage in ability (66% vs. 33%) against any team from race B. Yet if race B were divided into 15 countries (instead of 1) and got to field 15 national teams (all individually inferior to the team from race A by a 2-to-1 margin), the chance of one team from race B winning the championship was 81% while the lone team from race A winning all the matches to the end was 19%. That 19% is an indication of far greater ability, however, because – if the ability level were the same across the two races – the chance of that one team from race A winning would be 6.25% (as it is for every individual team from race B).

    I don’t think either of us is retarded, but one of us definitely has an East Asian quantitative IQ and the other has an African-level quantitative IQ. See below.

    You can nitpick all you want but that is the best data presented here by far and it uses the best metric available. And it clearly shows that Japanese and South Koreans are worse drivers than west europeans.

    Here are some of the variables with statistically significant impact on crashes: sex of drivers (females are more likely to crash), age of drivers (very young and very old people are much more likely to crash), socio-economic factors, vehicle mix, driver training (countries with “graduated licensing” requirements, in other words, those with a longer probationary driver’s permit period such as the United States and Australia, have fewer crashes than those that allow new driver’s acquire a full license within months, as is the case in, for example, South Korea), regulations, enforcement level, infrastructure (percentage of crash-prone arterial intersections, traffic lights, etc.), and, yes, drunk driving rate, etc. None of this is controlled for in the crashes per miles driven data.

    Yet, magically, when placed in the same countries, Asians suddenly have dramatically lower crash rates than whites do – even after adjusting for their lower drunk rates and risk-taking behaviors. Those are some bad drivers, indeed.

    Firstly it doesn’t control for the most relevant demographic factor: East Asian origin.

    So let me get this straight. Asian-born drivers in Australia = 1/2 crash rate of Australian-born drivers controlling the variables (risky behavior, demographics, age, sex, etc.). Bliss (African) logic: Since I know from my awesome intellect that East Asians are worse drivers than whites, it must be because all those Indians are super great drivers and push down the overall Asian rate! One small problem…

    Did you understand how the math works out in that assertion? If we were to assume that East Asians were half of Australia’s “Asian-born” drivers (and if they had the same crash percentage as Australian-born drivers), do you realize that, by your logic, the other (non-East) Asians have to have 0% crash rate in order for the entire “Asian-born” category to have half the rate as the Australian-born drivers? Indeed, if East Asians had a HIGHER crash rate than the natives, the non-East Asians would have to have a NEGATIVE crash rate to produce the overall Asian rate that is half that of the natives. And that’s only if the East Asians and non-East Asians are half-half of the overall Asian-born population. In reality, Chinese outnumber the Indian 2-to-1 in Australia (they are the two largest Asian groups) at 5.6% of the overall population and 2.8%, respectively.

    This math is actually grade school level (my fourth grader understood it). So if you didn’t get this… Let’s just say I feel sad for you… I bemoan the time I wasted here explaining it.

    Secondly, it is not at all improbable that foreign-born asians drive that much less than native Australians.

    That’s an assertion without evidence, a common occurrence with you. In order for the natives and the Asian-born (among licensed drivers) to have the same crash rate adjusted for mileage differential, that differential would have to be 2-to-1. You can’t use the “rural vs. urban” argument either, because the study controlled for “rurality of residence” already. Natives driving twice as much as the Asian-born drivers, adjusted for the other variables, is not impossible, but HIGHLY unlikely. And even if that possibility were true, that still produces the same crash rate between the two groups.

    • Replies: @Bliss
    , @Bliss
  282. Twinkie says:
    @res

    You really are as quantitatively inept as Twinkie is saying.

    I have been wasting my time responding to him, haven’t I?

    It reminds me of trying to explain to a black clerk at a drug store (years ago when I was a grad student) why she gave me the incorrect change. Not only did that person not understand arithmetic, she actually accused me of trying to trick her into giving me more money than was warranted. I had to ask for the manager (white man) and he figured it out right away and gave me the rest of the change (that was when I was a poor student on a scholarship; today, I’d just walk away and not waste my time on a trivial sum).

    The problem with arguing with someone like Bliss on the internet is that there is no manager to overrule his basic ignorance and innumeracy. It’s all “unknown unknowns” to him.

    • Replies: @res
  283. Bliss says:
    @res

    the relatively low cranial capacity of the Japanese in relation to their measured IQ is an interesting anomaly.

    I love the way you think exceptions disprove correlations.

    Are you blind? Japan is not the only anomaly in that map:

    The pink swath includes the UK, the entire MENA region, all of Southern Europe, parts of Central Europe, a good chunk of India and Subsaharan Africa, the entire Malay Archipelago, Central America etc. and the IQ of these countries range from the 60s to over 100. Where is the correlation? Ditto for all the other brain sizes.

    You really are as quantitatively inept as Twinkie is saying.

    That’s hilarious. Mr. “tenths of a percent”, who made a complete fool of himself in another thread, coming to the defense of another bozo who is making a fool of himself in this thread. Birds of a feather…

    Still waiting for you to answer my questions in the other thread:

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/is-neymar-black-brazil-and-the-painful-relativity-of-race/#comment-2408159

    • Replies: @res
  284. j2 says:
    @res

    “Nonetheless, the relatively low cranial capacity of the Japanese in relation to their measured IQ is an interesting anomaly.”

    I do not know much of this field, but to me it looked like the East Asian high visual-spatial IQ would be connected to East Asian testosterone differences (they actually have higher testosterone but if is non-effective for building muscles, so it must be for something else, like for changing the brain organization to a more masculine and visual-spatial direction). I wrote a post to describe this suggestion (but it is just an amateurish suggestion)

    http://www.pienisalaliittotutkimus.com/2018/05/11/why-east-asians-have-iq-profile-skewed-to-visual-spatial/

    Brain size effects overall IQ, but verbal IQ may be too cultural to show the effect, but then there are two skews: to visual-spatial and to verbal. The first might be associated with testosterone, the second maybe with ASPM gene haplogroup D, it is more common in Mediterranean.

  285. Bliss says:
    @Twinkie

    The maximum number of archers allowed per national team at the Summer Games is six.

    In the idealized scenario the assumption was no limits to team size. That’s why I had one team with 15 archers in my last post. I don’t recall you mentioning limited team sizes when concocting your imaginary scenarios.

    If all teams are equally sized and equally talented and one race fields more teams then another then of course it will win more. Simple addition tells you that. So why the hell were you yakking ad nauseam about probabilities? Why were you trying to overthink something so simple? You must have a screw loose in your brain.

    What the hell was your point anyway? It doesn’t change the fact that South Korea produces many more elite archers than the rest of the competing nations combined. Because it tries the hardest and spends the most money to do so as the BBC link I posted above showed. Not because of some racial “genetic advantage” as you claim.

    Since South Korea produces the best archers due to its hard core system it should win most if not all the individual medals available. In the 2016 Olympics South Korea won half the medals ( 2 golds and a bronze). While euro Caucasians won 2 silvers and a bronze despite not getting the same level of training as the Koreans. So where is genetic advantage?

    https://www.olympic.org/rio-2016/archery

    There is always an element of chance in sports and games. Otherwise, how did South Korea’s soccer team just beat the German team?

    Only an idiot would compare chance in soccer to archery. Archery is an individual sport where the archer stays stationary in a highly controlled environment. Soccer is chaos by comparison.

    • Replies: @res
    , @Twinkie
  286. anon[295] • Disclaimer says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    If Indian workers are so stupid, what makes you believe Indian CEO are somehow talented?

  287. Bliss says:
    @Twinkie

    So let me get this straight. Asian-born drivers in Australia = 1/2 crash rate of Australian-born drivers controlling the variables (risky behavior, demographics, age, sex, etc.).

    How many times do I have to repeat this?

    1. It does not use the correct metric (crashes per miles driven).

    2. It does not control for drunk driving. Most East Asians in Australia are from China. The fatality rate from drunk driving in China is a small fraction of what it is in Australia:

    Compared to Australia, South Korea has less than half the rate of crash fatalities due to drunk driving, yet it has 3.6 times the fatal crashes per billion vehicle-kilometers:

    https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/transport/road-safety-annual-report-2015/australia_irtad-2015-7-en#page4

    https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/transport/road-safety-annual-report-2015/korea_irtad-2015-26-en#page4

    You can dance around it all you want but the conclusion is inescapable: the driving IQ of East Asians is below average. Which makes the claims of high visuo-spatial IQ suspect.

  288. Bliss says:

    It reminds me of trying to explain to a black clerk at a drug store (years ago when I was a grad student) why she gave me the incorrect change

    Real classy. What the hell does this fake anecdote have to do with your claims of East Asian “genetic advantage” in Archery?

    This is actually amusing coming from the guy who in this very page claimed that east asians dominated in Olympic shooting. He even posted the list of winners to prove it. Shamefully for him simple addition of the number of medals by race proved him an arithmetically challenged liar: euro caucasians won more than twice the medals of east asians in that event. Check it out:

    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/cognitive-cliodynamics/#comment-2411259

  289. res says:
    @Twinkie

    I have been wasting my time responding to him, haven’t I?

    Pretty much, IMO. This thread might be instructive. http://www.unz.com/isteve/is-neymar-black-brazil-and-the-painful-relativity-of-race/#comment-2405232

    Even if it is a bit of a waste of time, I think it is worth countering nonsense (e.g. disputing the brain size IQ correlation elsewhere in this thread). My solution is to just note at some point I have presented my case and let the reader decide. Not sure if that is a good approach or not. Suggestions welcomed.

  290. res says:
    @Bliss

    Are you blind? Japan is not the only anomaly in that map:

    No, I am not blind. But you definitely don’t understand correlation–which is defined by a numeric calculation.

    BTW, Rindermann’s numbers (see Appendix linked above) are probably a better basis of discussion since they deal with the present rather than evolutionary data. The most obvious example of this difference is Australia, which in the present day (per Rindermann) has a cranial capacity of 1348.66. Compare that to your map.

    That’s hilarious. Mr. “tenths of a percent”, who made a complete fool of himself in another thread, coming to the defense of another bozo who is making a fool of himself in this thread. Birds of a feather…

    LOL. I’ll let others go take a look at that thread and decide for themselves. It is worth noting that I linked to the same thread in my earlier reply to Twinkie (before I read your comment here).

    Still waiting for you to answer my questions in the other thread:

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/is-neymar-black-brazil-and-the-painful-relativity-of-race/#comment-2408159

    Let’s revisit your numbered questions (there were a lot of rhetorical questions which only merit laughter):

    1. You use the population number as a cumulative but the homesteading number only for that decade. Why? Is that not a false comparison?

    2. Your population number is not limited to heads of households only is it? So why are you not including the entire family in the homesteading numbers? Another faulty comparison.

    1. is actually a worthwhile question. I think of the average population for the decade as a good metric for the flow of homesteads since we have the number of homesteads granted per decade. Keeping in mind that I looked at this for the peak homestead decade to make the number most favorable to your argument (this is a form of steelmanning), let’s discuss this more.

    I should note that is important to keep in mind the difference between flow and stock variables in quantitative analyses like this (I believe this is the point of your first question). A frequent challenge is non-availability of important data. More on stock and flow: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_and_flow

    The best data we have is the flow data from the table you linked to: https://www.nps.gov/home/learn/historyculture/upload/Final%20Patents.pdf
    which is why I chose to focus on the patents per decade/average population metric. The intent was to gain a feel for the maximum flow per decade as a sanity check (you might have noticed I was not arguing that your metric should have been half a percent, just that the two metrics seem inconsistent–leading to question 2).

    A more complete analysis would look at the flow for each decade and incorporate the impact of the high immigration seen in those years. I’m not interested in putting forth the effort to do that given that you don’t even seem to understand the simple version of the analysis and I would have to make controversial assumptions to go deeper.

    2. was answered extensively both in my earlier comments there and in my response to that comment (that you don’t see this is telling). My point is you can’t just multiply by 7 (est. family size) because multiple members of the family can homestead (e.g. later in life, or as part of acquiring a family “block” locally) and in some cases people acquire multiple homesteads (e.g. in different regions). I have not been able to find good information on how many female homesteaders there were, which might also affect the validity of your family size adjustment: http://homesteadcongress.blogspot.com/2010/03/rethinking-woman-homesteader-married.html

    And to be clear, the best summary of what I was attempting to argue was in my comment 305 (my first comment in the exchange): http://www.unz.com/isteve/is-neymar-black-brazil-and-the-painful-relativity-of-race/#comment-2402309

    So I think it likely that your 10 million estimate is a significant overestimate. Whether or not the actual number is “especially large” in the context of the US populations of the time spread out over three generations is something of a judgment call, but I tend to agree with Lot.

    The combination of arrogance and stupidity you present is both tiresome and all too common. I do have to commend you for actually acknowledging your earlier error at the start of your linked comment. Though you seem to have missed the implication that the decade number is 10x the yearly number (i.e. an important difference).

    P.S. Twinkie, looks like I am wasting my time too. It is hard to know what is necessary to demonstrate to a casual reader the incorrectness of a superficially plausible argument. It’s clear that data and numbers are not useful for convincing people like Bliss in any case.

    • Replies: @Bliss
  291. res says:
    @Bliss

    I don’t recall you mentioning limited team sizes when concocting your imaginary scenarios.

    Most of the conversation was about the Olympics. Which has limited team sizes.

    If all teams are equally sized and equally talented and one race fields more teams then another then of course it will win more. Simple addition tells you that. So why the hell were you yakking ad nauseam about probabilities? Why were you trying to overthink something so simple?

    Twinkie’s point (as I understand it) is that each individual performance has variation (hence the probabilities). When team size is limited to three the odds are that sometimes one of the many other competitors will have an unusually good performance which may (probabilities again) be enough to overcome the ability advantage of the three person team. A variant of this is the best performer(s) of a given country being eliminated in qualifying.

    As far as overthinking, the key lies in the quote often attributed to Einstein: “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.” https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein

    The more detailed explanation explains how the occasional Olympic underperformance can be consistent with overall superiority. The classic American example of this was the 1980 “Miracle on Ice”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_on_Ice
    I don’t think anyone disputes the overall dominance of Soviet amateur hockey of that era.

    The issue is your using the occasional exception (i.e. low probability outcome, like South Korea losing in archery) as proof dominance does not exist. The similarity of this blind spot to your thinking Japanese brain size disproves the brain size correlation with IQ is instructive.

    You must have a screw loose in your brain.

    Projection is a terrible thing… And that was really ironic coming from someone who invoked “classy” in another comment.

    Only an idiot

    I think informed debaters know language like this is a tipoff that you don’t have that persuasive of an argument and are also not a very good debater.

    I am guessing you win arguments in real life by projecting confidence and blustering. That does not work as well here.

  292. utu says:

    I am guessing you win arguments in real life by projecting confidence and blustering.

    Like here:

  293. Twinkie says:
    @Bliss

    If all teams are equally sized and equally talented and one race fields more teams then another then of course it will win more. Simple addition tells you that.

    Finally! You get grade school math! But, sadly, you are wrong about “simple addition.” It’s actually multiplication. Follow along here if you can. Again, my young children did.

    Scenario 1 – control scenario. All variables are the same. Identical ability. Same team size. But Race A is all in ONE country. Race B is made up of FIFTEEN countries.

    When the team from race A plays any team from race B, the odds of victory is 50% (even odds). Since there are 16 teams total, a team must win 4 rounds/matches to win the championship. In this scenario, the chance of any single team winning is 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 = 0.0625. In other words, every single team as 6.25% chance of winning the whole thing. HOWEVER, since race A only fields one team, the chance of it winning the championship is 6.25%. Meanwhile, the chance of race B winning is 93.75% (6.25% x 15, because only one of its 15 teams needs to make it to the end).

    Now SCENARIO 2. In this scenario, everything stays the same but the odds of winning changes (let’s say race A has a genetic advantage and/or draws from a much larger population of players than race B). So, instead of the team from race A having a 50% chance of winning against any team from race B, it now has a 2-to-1 advantage (66.67% chance of winning vs. 33.33% chance of losing).

    What is now the chance of the only team from race A winning the championship? 0.6667 x 0.6667 x 0.6667 x 0.6667 = 0.1976 or 19.76%. Meanwhile, because race B fields 15 teams (albeit individually inferior to the only team from race A by a 2-to-1 margin), the chance that a team from race B wins the whole thing is 80.24%.

    This means that – despite race A having a 2-to-1 advantage over race B – the team from race A will, on average, only win one championship every five times the event is held. Such is the advantage of being able to field many more teams.

    Europeans field MANY MORE TEAMS and MANY MORE COMPETITORS than East Asians do in both archery and shooting. Despite that massive advantage, a team from East Asia wins the events (most gold medals) a large majority of the time. That IS dominance. Even accounting for the overall population difference, this means that there is a pronounced difference in shooting ability between the two groups.

    Archery is an individual sport where the archer stays stationary in a highly controlled environment. Soccer is chaos by comparison.

    1. I wasn’t saying that archery and soccer were similar sports – I was simply explaining that in sporting events, due to chance, even a 57th ranked team (South Korea) can occasionally upset the 1st ranked team (Germany).

    2. It is an interesting question on whether upsets are easier in team sports (or larger team size sports) versus individual (or small team size) sports. On the one hand, larger team sports can multiply variables by player size. On the other hand, in individual sports, the fate of ONE person can determine the whole outcome (whereas in larger team sports, a team might be able to overcome one player being sick).

    3. Archery and shooting are not as simple as you think (probably because you don’t know anything about it). Let me repeat:

    Archery ability is correlated well to visuospatial ability, as is shooting firearmsn(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166432812000381). It’s not simply a matter of aiming well. Unlike in the movies (where “snipers” put the X on the target and press the trigger), in real life, projectiles have a parabolic curve and therefore have two intersections with the sight. An archer or a shooter needs to do instant calculations in his brain of the distance to the target, the arc of fire, the velocity of the projectile as well as environmental conditions (wind direction and velocity, temperature, altitude, barometric pressure, etc… even the curvature of the earth in the case of long distance shooting).

    And unlike soccer which is a game of meters, archery and shooting are games of millimeters. One heartbeat difference can result in not making it to the Olympics and winning a gold medal. It may seem less “chaotic” to the casual observer, but error tolerance is EXTREMELY low. Misestimating the wind velocity by 1 m/sec can have a catastrophic result for the competitor.

    How many times do I have to repeat this?

    1. It does not use the correct metric (crashes per miles driven).

    2. It does not control for drunk driving.

    You clearly have a serious reading comprehension problem. I addressed both already.

    1. The native-born would have to drive twice as many miles as the Asian-born to have the SAME crash rate (if you were to believe miles driven correlate to crash numbers perfectly, which is NOT the case). Given that the study controlled for “rurality of residence,” that is HIGHLY UNLIKELY.

    2. The study controlled for risky behaviors.

    Real classy.

    What I wrote was pretty mild compared to a stream of Tourette’s Syndrome-like invectives you have launched at me. They don’t bother me, because it’s clear to me and to most here that there is a pretty sizable IQ gap between the two of us. But I think my anecdote hurt your feelings, because it’s true – and it’s something that millions of whites and Asians experience frequently when they are unlucky enough to interact with blacks.

    • Replies: @Bliss
    , @Bliss
    , @Bliss
  294. @ Twinkie

    “They don’t bother me, because it’s clear to me and to most here that there is a pretty sizable IQ gap between the two of us.”

    I’m not sure about that. IMHO it’s the other way around. You look like those teenagers obsessed with the size of their “thing”…And they lie about it. They say it’s big when in reality it’s small.

    “But I think my anecdote hurt your feelings, because it’s true – and it’s something that millions of whites and Asians experience frequently when they are unlucky enough to interact with blacks”

    Again by overdoing it, you gave the game away. You spoke about your scholarship (genius scholarship, I am sure) to tell us how brilliant you are.

    You just forgot to tell us that you went to Harvard. Or is it Princeton?.

    Sorry, it was MIT, of course. it’s where genius go.

    You see, if you were really that intelligent you wouldn’t be “comparing” yourself with blacks (we all know that they are intellectually and morally inferior, don’t we ? ) or with ask Ashkenazi Jews or even with Asians – we all agree they have higher IQs, don’t we?

    People that are intelligent..are just intelligent. Even here (Unz) they don’t spend their time proving how brilliant they are. Only fools do that.

    No need to reply. I don’t deserve a reply from such a superior intellect.

    • Replies: @res
  295. res says:
    @James Brown

    I’m not sure about that. IMHO it’s the other way around.

    If you can’t tell the difference in the arguments being presented by each then it does not speak well for you.

    And they lie about it.

    What many people don’t seem to realize (which both baffles and fascinates me) is that sustaining a lie about high intelligence is hard in a forum where one writes thousands of words (Bliss, 160k words, Twinkie 791k, res 584k). It is fairly easy to fake low IQ. High IQ, not so much. It’s not just about putting together long, impressive sounding words. I guess I have to remember some people truly can’t tell the difference.

    It is worth noting that sometimes two smart people have such divergent worldviews that they both seem stupid to each other. Though even that perception may not survive a detailed presentation of arguments.

    You see, if you were really that intelligent you wouldn’t be “comparing” yourself with blacks

    That’s rather true. I seriously doubt Twinkie would be having this conversation in real life. Just as Bliss would not be launching a “stream of Tourette’s Syndrome-like invectives” (I think anyway, utu’s debate video makes me less certain). When faced with sufficient levels of abuse IMHO it is necessary to either return fire or be perceived as a doormat.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    , @James Brown
  296. Twinkie says:
    @res

    If you can’t tell the difference in the arguments being presented by each then it does not speak well for you.

    Note that “James Brown” doesn’t mention a thing about the vast majority of my comment that is mathematical in nature. He fixates on the very small fraction of the comment that is “inert.”

    Low IQ people are attracted to the inane as flies are attracted to… dung. They don’t have the cognitive capacity to argue even (mathematically) mildly complex concepts, so they stick to ad hominem.

    That’s rather true. I seriously doubt Twinkie would be having this conversation in real life.

    I live in an area that is under 1% black, so, no.

    But this is, of course, par for the course. It’s not unusual to run into whites and Asians with only high school degrees with a better grasp of mathematics than blacks with graduate school degrees, thanks to affirmative action. When the latter realize that they can’t even carry out complicated conversations with their nominal equals, let alone compete with them cognitively, they are liable to get emotional.

    The sad thing here is that I care about the well-being of black Americans, as I do of all my fellow Americans of good will, a lot more than some of the commenters here who are not so well-intentioned toward them. But that’s just not enough for most blacks – they have to have the rest of us toe the party line of “the noble lie” that they are our cognitive equals who are, simply, held down by our moral failings (i.e. discrimination).

  297. Bliss says:
    @Twinkie

    But, sadly, you are wrong about “simple addition.” It’s actually multiplication……….Scenario 1 – control scenario. All variables are the same. Identical ability. Same team size. But Race A is all in ONE country. Race B is made up of FIFTEEN countries.

    Lol. There you go again multiplying your stupid mistake of way overthinking something so simple a child could understand it: 2 is more than 1. Raising the number of euro teams in the comparison with East Asian teams to 15 doesn’t make your claim of “genetic advantage” in Archery any more valid. For the following reasons:

    1. The assumption of equal ability among all the teams is a bullshit assumption. And it leads to bullshit conclusions that prove nothing.

    2. Quality trumps quantity.

    3. The number of medals available in the individual events is exactly the same as the maximum size of a team. So it is possible for one dominant team to win all those medals.

    4. No country trains so many archers so intensively for so long (starting from primary school) than South Korea. Which results in a heavy imbalance in the number of elite archers in favor of South Korea:

    https://www.bbc.com/sport/olympics/18499167

    This set-up ensures that, while nearly every other nation competing at London 2012 can count the number of elite archers on one hand, Korea’s total currently stands at 147.

    Yet despite this advantage in numbers of elite archers (resulting from far more intensive training) South Koreans won just half of the 6 medals in the individual events in the last Olympics (much less intensively trained whites won the other 3). That is no proof of “genetic advantage” in Archery.

    Europeans field MANY MORE TEAMS and MANY MORE COMPETITORS than East Asians do in both archery and shooting. Despite that massive advantage, a team from East Asia wins the events (most gold medals) a large majority of the time. That IS dominance. Even accounting for the overall population difference, this means that there is a pronounced difference in shooting ability between the two groups.

    Winning 1/3 of the medals in shooting is not dominance, you blithering imbecile:

    https://www.olympic.org/rio-2016/shooting

    • Replies: @Twinkie
  298. Bliss says:
    @Twinkie

    But, sadly, you are wrong about “simple addition.” It’s actually multiplication……….Scenario 1 – control scenario. All variables are the same. Identical ability. Same team size. But Race A is all in ONE country. Race B is made up of FIFTEEN countries.

    Lol. There you go again multiplying your stupid mistake of way overthinking something so simple a child could understand it: 2 is more than 1. Raising the number of euro teams in the comparison with East Asian teams to 15 doesn’t make your claim of “genetic advantage” in Archery any more valid. For the following reasons:

    1. The assumption of equal ability among all the teams is a bullshit assumption. And it leads to bullshit conclusions that prove nothing.

    2. Quality trumps quantity.

    3. The number of medals available in the individual events is exactly the same as the maximum size of a team. So it is possible for one dominant team to win all those medals.

    4. No country trains so many archers so intensively for so long (starting from primary school) than South Korea. Which results in a heavy imbalance in the number of elite archers in favor of South Korea:

    https://www.bbc.com/sport/olympics/18499167

    This set-up ensures that, while nearly every other nation competing at London 2012 can count the number of elite archers on one hand, Korea’s total currently stands at 147.

    Yet despite this advantage in numbers of elite archers (resulting from far more intensive training) South Koreans won just half of the 6 medals in the individual events in the last Olympics (much less intensively trained whites won the other 3). That is no proof of “genetic advantage” in Archery.

    Europeans field MANY MORE TEAMS and MANY MORE COMPETITORS than East Asians do in both archery and shooting. Despite that massive advantage, a team from East Asia wins the events (most gold medals) a large majority of the time. That IS dominance. Even accounting for the overall population difference, this means that there is a pronounced difference in shooting ability between the two groups.

    Winning 1/3 of the medals in shooting is not dominance, you blithering imbecile:

    https://www.olympic.org/rio-2016/shooting

    • Replies: @Twinkie
  299. Bliss says:
    @Twinkie

    The native-born would have to drive twice as many miles as the Asian-born to have the SAME crash rate (if you were to believe miles driven correlate to crash numbers perfectly, which is NOT the case). Given that the study controlled for “rurality of residence,” that is HIGHLY UNLIKELY.

    You numb skull . If you don’t drive you have zero chance of crashing your car. Of course miles driven is the best metric available.

    The study controlled for risky behaviors.

    Stop chasing your tail already you damn fool. Show us where it specifically controlled for drunk driving.

  300. Bliss says:
    @res

    think of the average population for the decade as a good metric for the flow of homesteads since we have the number of homesteads granted per decade.

    It was utterly moronic of you to compare the number of homesteads awarded in that decade to the average population for that decade. I explained that to you but you are too damn stupid to understand something even a child could:

    1. The population number includes women and children. So should the homesteaders number. You didn’t do that. Why?

    2. Since you are comparing homesteads awarded only in that decade, not all homesteads awarded from the beginning of the program to the end of that decade, then the proper comparison is to the population increase during that decade. Isn’t it?

    The number of homesteaders increased by ~3 million (using average family size = 7) during that decade, while the total population increased by 14.5 million. Which means the non-homesteader population increased by ~11.5 million.

    So homesteader growth was around ~26% of non-homesteader growth for that decade. Not the “tenths of a percent” that you came up with. If you weren’t so retarded that ridiculously small percentage would have raised a red flag warning you that you had made a big mistake.

    • Replies: @res
  301. Twinkie says:
    @Bliss

    1. The assumption of equal ability among all the teams is a bullshit assumption. And it leads to bullshit conclusions that prove nothing.

    That was the control example. Look at scenario 2.

    You don’t get the junior high school level math. Good luck with your life.

  302. Twinkie says:
    @Bliss

    To wit:

    Now SCENARIO 2. In this scenario, everything stays the same but the odds of winning changes (let’s say race A has a genetic advantage and/or draws from a much larger population of players than race B). So, instead of the team from race A having a 50% chance of winning against any team from race B, it now has a 2-to-1 advantage (66.67% chance of winning vs. 33.33% chance of losing).

    What is now the chance of the only team from race A winning the championship? 0.6667 x 0.6667 x 0.6667 x 0.6667 = 0.1976 or 19.76%. Meanwhile, because race B fields 15 teams (albeit individually inferior to the only team from race A by a 2-to-1 margin), the chance that a team from race B wins the whole thing is 80.24%.

    This means that – despite race A having a 2-to-1 advantage over race B – the team from race A will, on average, only win one championship every five times the event is held. Such is the advantage of being able to field many more teams.

    Europeans field MANY MORE TEAMS and MANY MORE COMPETITORS than East Asians do in both archery and shooting. Despite that massive advantage, a team from East Asia wins the events (most gold medals) a large majority of the time. That IS dominance. Even accounting for the overall population difference, this means that there is a pronounced difference in shooting ability between the two groups

    • Replies: @Bliss
  303. res says:
    @Bliss

    Sigh. This really is a waste of time since when you are actually presented with a quantitative argument with results you don’t like (as Twinkie did) you just dismiss it. Apparently without even understanding it.

    1. The population number includes women and children. So should the homesteaders number. You didn’t do that. Why?

    Lack of good numbers and complexity of calculations. Also (as I mentioned above) there may be an issue with women claiming homesteads (do you have data for that?). If I had data for women I might be inclined to correct for women, but children are complicated as I have discussed multiple times above and more below.

    2. Since you are comparing homesteads awarded only in that decade, not all homesteads awarded from the beginning of the program to the end of that decade, then the proper comparison is to the population increase during that decade. Isn’t it?

    No. First, it would be more appropriate to look at net new people (i.e. adjusting for mortality) rather than population increase. About 9 million ([697+1118] / 2 * 10 based on https://www.infoplease.com/us/mortality/deaths-united-states-1900-2011 ) died in those years. That alone would change your numbers to 23.5 million increase, non-homesteader increase ~20.5 million, ~15% homesteader vs. non-HS (arguably homesteader % of increase < 13% is a better metric, BTW). But heck, what's an almost factor of two error right off the bat. If anyone is interested, here are immigration by decade statistics as well: http://www.emmigration.info/us-immigration-history-statistics.htm This article discusses the relationship of homesteading and immigration: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-the-homestead-act-opening-the-door-to-america/2012/12/26/5654102a-4dfd-11e2-950a-7863a013264b_story.html

    Second, the pool of homesteaders includes not just the new people from the current decade but all people who don't have a homestead yet (and that ignores those who acquire two or more). Since we are talking fairly small percentages per decade acquiring homesteads each decade the remaining pool from earlier years is large relative to new people.

    The number of homesteaders increased by ~3 million (using average family size = 7) during that decade,

    I have explained at length above why you can’t blithely make that adjustment. The problem is possible double (triple, etc.) counting of people involved in acquiring family blocks, etc.

    It was utterly moronic of you

    you are too damn stupid to understand something even a child could

    If you weren’t so retarded..

    You really are an asshole. F*ck off.

    I have made my points and am done. As Twinkie said, good luck with your life. I hope you don’t need to use math in it.

    • Replies: @Bliss
    , @Bliss
  304. @res

    “If you can’t tell the difference in the arguments being presented by each then it does not speak well for you.”

    Not interested at all in the the subject. Read two or three posts. My experience tells me that when people brag about their intelligence and they use some stupid rhetorical skills, they are not as intelligent as they would like us to believe.

    Maybe I was being unfair to Twinkie. Of course what I wrote also applies to Bliss, if he was bragging about his IQ and using stupid rhetorical skills.

    “It is fairly easy to fake low IQ. High IQ, not so much”

    I’m not sure about that. People pretending that they have low IQ are very easy to catch.

    People coming from a privileged background can easily fake IQ and even get credentials to “prove” it.
    It seems that is not that difficult for very rich kids but dim to get into HYP or another Ivy league school. Most people believe that if s/he (not blacks) went to Harvard therefore s/he is very intelligent.

    “It is worth noting that sometimes two smart people have such divergent worldviews that they both seem stupid to each other.”

    Disagree but I believe you know that doesn’t make sense. It’s true that sometimes smart people can be very stupid..But that is something else.

    • Replies: @res
  305. res says:
    @James Brown

    “If you can’t tell the difference in the arguments being presented by each then it does not speak well for you.”

    Not interested at all in the the subject.

    It is informative that you are passing judgment based on a discussion of subject matter unfamiliar to you. It gives a good indicator of what kind of cues you must be using. To be fair, you are quite explicit about that in the final sentence of the paragraph. I think it is much easier to judge competence when one knows enough about the subject to evaluate the arguments themselves rather than the form they take. IMHO form based judgments are much more subjectively biased.

    In my experience intelligence bragging takes different forms. Unprovoked it is a negative indicator. But the Twinkie/Bliss interaction follows a script I have seen frequently enough with people of known different abilities to actually find Twinkie’s comments consistent with him being what he says he is. It also makes a difference that I have read a multitude of excellent comments from him which AFAICT comprise a self consistent presentation of himself (see thousands of words comment below).

    “It is fairly easy to fake low IQ. High IQ, not so much”

    I’m not sure about that. People pretending that they have low IQ are very easy to catch.

    The question is relative degree. I agree that low IQ is harder to fake than many might think. And might argue “fairly easy” was a bit of hyperbole on my part.

    People coming from a privileged background can easily fake IQ and even get credentials to “prove” it.

    True, but it is important to note that the sentence you quoted immediately followed “sustaining a lie about high intelligence is hard in a forum where one writes thousands of words.” That was the context to which I was referring. I think that a credentialed faker is pretty easily exposed in such a case.

    It is important to note that I find judgments like this much easier if they include quantitative elements. In my experience it is much harder to detect fakers in verbal social science work or arguments. Though the absence of quantitative thought where it seems applicable is an excellent clue IMHO.

    It seems that is not that difficult for very rich kids but dim to get into HYP or another Ivy league school. Most people believe that if s/he (not blacks) went to Harvard therefore s/he is very intelligent.

    An especially good example because such people are often polished and good at social signaling. Both of class, which is conflated with IQ, and of “fake intelligence” since they at least know what the real version looks like.

    “It is worth noting that sometimes two smart people have such divergent worldviews that they both seem stupid to each other.”

    Disagree but I believe you know that doesn’t make sense. It’s true that sometimes smart people can be very stupid..But that is something else.

    Actually not. I think it is an important point as well. I believe the phenomenon I describe explains much of the “Trump is stupid” ridiculousness we see. Trump not being an intellectual is part of it, but I don’t think he would be called stupid so aggressively if he held the “correct” worldview. And I believe many of the people calling him stupid actually believe it to be true.

    I definitely agree with “sometimes smart people can be very stupid.”

    P.S. Thanks for engaging with thoughtful replies.

  306. Bliss says:
    @Twinkie

    Twit, your scenario 2 doesn’t prove east asian genetic advantage either.

    because race B fields 15 teams (albeit individually inferior to the only team from race A by a 2-to-1 margin), the chance that a team from race B wins the whole thing is 80.24%……..This means that – despite race A having a 2-to-1 advantage over race B – the team from race A will, on average, only win one championship every five times the event is held. Such is the advantage of being able to field many more teams.

    More bullshit assumptions from the bullshit artist. Quit assuming nonsensical numbers and probabilities and stick to reality.

    In reality the number of teams proves nothing, since the size of the teams varies from 1 to 6. For example, in the last Olympics Euros fielded 49 archers in 21 teams versus 23 archers in 5 teams for East Asians. Only one euro team fielded the maximum 6 archers allowed, while 3 east asian nations did.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archery_at_the_2016_Summer_Olympics

    Both races won 6 medals each (4 silvers and 2 bronzes vs 4 gold and 2 bronzes for East Asians). The euro medals were distributed among 5 nations while 2 East Asian teams won medals.

    The fantasy of East Asian racial advantage that you are peddling is belied by the fact that China and Japan won no medals at all, despite sending 6 and 4 archers respectively. And by the fact that South Korea’s heavily disproportional number of Archery medals is the result of it’s hugely disproportionate investment in this weakly contested sport.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
  307. Bliss says:
    @res

    If I had data for women I might be inclined to correct for women, but children are complicated

    That’s your pathetic excuse for assuming that the average size of homesteader households was one? Lol. You are a fine example of extreme stupidity and shamelessness. Definitely the dumbest person in this forum. Women and children are included in the family you numbskull:

    https://www.infoplease.com/us/household-and-family-statistics/us-households-size-1790-2006

    As anyone can see the average household size in America was much larger than it is today. Homesteader families must have been even larger on average:

    • LOL: res
  308. Bliss says:
    @res

    No. First, it would be more appropriate to look at net new people (i.e. adjusting for mortality) rather than population increase.

    What the hell do you think is the difference between population increase and “net new people”?

    About 9 million ([697+1118] / 2 * 10 based on https://www.infoplease.com/us/mortality/deaths-united-states-1900-2011 ) died in those years. That alone would change your numbers to 23.5 million increase,

    Lol. The population increase accounts for deaths, and births. The census doesn’t count dead people you frickin moron. I can’t believe how stupid you are.

    Second, the pool of homesteaders includes not just the new people from the current decade but all people who don’t have a homestead yet

    Liar. The number you used was the number of homesteads awarded in that decade.

    The problem is possible double (triple, etc.) counting of people involved in acquiring family blocks, etc.

    Families grow, children leave and start new families. And get homesteads if and when they are eligible. So what? Idiot.

    I have made my points and am done.

    In other words, you are done proving your stupidity with your retarded “points”. Now get lost.

    • Replies: @res
  309. Twinkie says:
    @Bliss

    More bullshit assumptions from the bullshit artist. Quit assuming nonsensical numbers and probabilities and stick to reality.

    Can you make cavemen noises also while expressing the fact that you don’t get junior high school level math?

    For example, in the last Olympics Euros fielded 49 archers in 21 teams versus 23 archers in 5 teams for East Asians…

    Both races won 6 medals each (4 silvers and 2 bronzes vs 4 gold and 2 bronzes for East Asians). The euro medals were distributed among 5 nations while 2 East Asian teams won medals.

    So Europeans fielded more than twice as many archers and more than four times as many teams, but garnered ZERO gold* medal to East Asians FOUR (all the gold medals available).

    I rest my case.

    *You and I have been discussing gold medals until now, but see how you abruptly change the metrics to all medals in a desperate attempt to disguise the weakness of your evidence. Transparent deception is truly a sign of very low intelligence.

    As I wrote earlier, have a nice life.

  310. Bliss says:

    So Europeans fielded more than twice as many archers and more than four times as many teams, but garnered ZERO gold* medal to East Asians FOUR (all the gold medals available).

    I rest my case.

    You don’t get to rest your case based only on the results of one year, dumbkopf. That was the only year east asians won all the gold medals. Euros did that 3 times:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Olympic_medalists_in_archery

    Btw, China and Japan have never won a single gold medal yet while euros from 7 nations have. How do you reconcile that with your East Asian “genetic advantage” fantasy?

    • Replies: @Twinkie
  311. Twinkie says:
    @Bliss

    You don’t get to rest your case based only on the results of one year, dumbkopf. That was the only year east asians won all the gold medals. Euros did that 3 times:

    More reading comprehension failure. Europeans have never won all the gold medals in archery since 1988 when the team competition began (South Korean men’s team won 5 out of 8 times, its women’s team 8 out of 8 times).

    Btw, China and Japan have never won a single gold medal yet while euros from 7 nations have. How do you reconcile that with your East Asian “genetic advantage” fantasy?

    Still illiterate. China won a gold in 2008 (woman’s individual), and of course it and Japan have won several other medals throughout – it’s just that Koreans are better at archery than they are. Korean archers have always been famed since ancient times even in East Asia. Ancient Chinese called them Dongyi (“Eastern Bowmen”) and during Hideyoshi’s invasion of Korea, the Japanese considered themselves superior in all arms except archery, in which they grudgingly admitted the Koreans were better.

    • Replies: @Bliss
  312. res says:
    @Bliss

    What the hell do you think is the difference between population increase and “net new people”?

    Deaths, moron.

    Liar. The number you used was the number of homesteads awarded in that decade.

    Non sequitur, moron.

    Families grow, children leave and start new families. And get homesteads if and when they are eligible. So what? Idiot.

    As I said, double, triple, etc. counting. Moron.

    In other words, you are done proving your stupidity with your retarded “points”. Now get lost.

    I sincerely hope you are just trolling and in reality are not this stupid. Moron.

    • Replies: @Bliss
  313. Bliss says:
    @Twinkie

    More reading comprehension failure. Europeans have never won all the gold medals in archery since 1988 when the team competition began

    Euros won all the gold medals that were available before then, you illogical fool.

    since 1988 when the team competition began South Korean men’ team won

    But they didn’t win any gold in the mixed team competition which will begin in the next Olympics, so that doesn’t count? See how imbecilic your previous point was?

    China won a gold in 2008 (woman’s individual)

    Yeah I missed that. But it doesn’t really change the point: if East Asians have a “genetic advantage” in Archery, why don’t China and Japan and Taipei win more medals?

    it’s just that Koreans are better at archery than they are. Korean archers have always been famed since ancient times even in East Asia.

    So why the hell have you been claiming racial superiority for all East Asians?

    the Japanese considered themselves superior in all arms except archery, in which they grudgingly admitted the Koreans were better.

    Considering that Japanese aren’t among the best archers in the world (Japan hasn’t won a single gold medal in the Olympics) that is not saying much. Is it?

    Also, the fact that the US men’s team has won more medals (13) than the South Korean men’s team (11) belies any claim of dominance. Doesn’t it?

    • Replies: @Twinkie
  314. Bliss says:
    @res

    Whenever I call you a moron I give good reasons for using the word.

    When you call me a moron without giving good reasons, then you are just being a….moron.

    • Replies: @res
    , @Twinkie
  315. res says:
    @Bliss

    Every one of those lines except the last contained the reason for calling you a moron.

    Your reasons for calling me names on the other hand tend to be laughable. Or would you care to point one out where you are actually correct?

    Ir is telling that you had no response to the substantive parts of that comment. It is pretty sad when all you have to offer is insults.

    As I said: I sincerely hope you are just trolling and in reality are not this stupid.

    • Replies: @Bliss
    , @Twinkie
  316. Twinkie says:
    @Bliss

    Euros won all the gold medals that were available before then, you illogical fool.

    You are as lazy as you are mathematically deficient. You should perhaps, just perhaps, do some research before writing these statements. For example…

    Modern Olympic archery started with the Munich Game in 1972. South Korea and China did NOT participate in Olympic archery until 1984 (both boycotted the 1980 Moscow Games as well). It’s a bit hard to win any medals when you don’t send a team, don’t you think?

    The first year China and South Korea participated in Olympic archery was 1984 (Los Angeles) and the results were: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archery_at_the_1984_Summer_Olympics

    Men’s individual: gold, Darrell Pace (USA), silver, Richard McKinney (USA), bronze, Hiroshi Yamamoto (JPN)
    Women’s individual: gold, Seo Hyang-soon (KOR), silver, Li Lingjuan (CHN), bronze, Kim Jin-ho (KOR)

    Of the 6 medals available, (presumably white) Americans won 2, East Asians won 4. Europeans won nothing.

    Starting 1988 (Seoul), the number of archery medals increased to 12 (3 each for men’s team and individual and 3 each for women’s team and individual), of them 4 being gold. In its second participation, South Korea won 3 of 4 gold medals in archery, with the U.S. winning 1. Since then, South Korea has won at least 2 gold medals every event, usually winning 3 or 4, with Chinese starting to medal as well.

    In China’s defense, although it has fared worse than South Korea in archery, it has done better than the latter in shooting events, frequently being the top medal garner at the Summer Games (1st place in shooting medals in 2000, 2004, 2008; 2nd place in 1992, 1996; 3rd place in 2016; and 4th place in 2012 (when South Korea was 1st).

    So why the hell have you been claiming racial superiority for all East Asians?

    I never claimed “racial superiority for all East Asians.” What I claimed was that East Asians tend to dominate shooting sports, including archery, because success in these sports are correlated to high visuospatial ability, something IQ researchers have repeatedly found in East Asian populations. That doesn’t mean non-East Asians can’t excel in shooting or archery, but the law of the large numbers of being what it is, East Asians will tend to produce more winners (at least as a percentage) in sports that are correlated to visuospatial ability… rather like people of West African descent excelling in sports that are highly correlated to the presence of fast twitch muscle fibers (e.g. sprinting).

    Considering that Japanese aren’t among the best archers in the world (Japan hasn’t won a single gold medal in the Olympics) that is not saying much. Is it?

    Japan was 3rd in 1976 – only behind the U.S. and the Soviet Union and 4th in 1984, after the U.S., South Korea, and China. They actually did well until the other East Asians started to compete.

    Surely, you are not suggesting that ALL Europeans are the same?

    Also, the fact that the US men’s team has won more medals (13) than the South Korean men’s team (11) belies any claim of dominance. Doesn’t it?

    First of all, why are you separating out men from women, instead of counting the combined total? Is a country or race made up of just men? Of course you do this, because the dominance of East Asians in these events are even more crushing. But, let’s set that inconvenience (for your argument) aside and count apples to apples:

    Since South Koreans started to participate (in 1988), here are the respective medal counts for MEN only:

    2016 US: 1 silver, 1 bronze (total 2)
    2016 ROK: 2 gold (2)

    2012 US: 1 silver (1)
    2012 ROK: 1 gold, 1 bronze (2)

    2008 US: 0
    2008 ROK: 1 gold, 1 silver (2)

    2004 US: 0
    2004 ROK: 1 gold (1)

    2000 US: 1 silver, 1 bronze (2)
    2000 ROK: 1 gold (1)

    1996 US: 2 gold (2)
    1996 ROK: 1 silver, 1 bronze (2)

    1992 US: 0
    1992 ROK: 1 silver (1)

    1988 US: 1 gold, 1 silver (2)
    1988 ROK: 1 gold, 1 silver (2)

    1984 US: 1 gold, 1 silver (2)
    1984 ROK: 0 [first time participation]

    Total for US: 4 gold, 5 silver, 2 bronze (total 11)
    Total for ROK: 7 gold, 4 silver, 2 bronze (total of 13)

    Ooops! You got your basic addition wrong again. Sad.

    • Replies: @Bliss
    , @Okechukwu
  317. Twinkie says:
    @Bliss

    To me, a moron is a grown-up person who does not understand junior high school-level math. “res” seems to understand college-level math/statistics (he and I had discussions about regression in past comments).

    You on the other hand… Your response to a very basic probability equation (seriously, what educated adult doesn’t understand 0.6667^4?), which my junior high schooler understood, was:

    More bullshit assumptions from the bullshit artist. Quit assuming nonsensical numbers and probabilities and stick to reality.

    Seriously, the only thing stupider would have been you making cavemen noises and smashing sticks and stones in frustration at your inability to comprehend it.

    Thanks for that “teachable moment,” by the way. Three of my younger kids and I had a good time calculating various probabilities based on variables (changing the number of teams, altering the one-on-one odds of winning, etc.). Now, they are ready to take on Las Vegas bookies!

    • Replies: @Bliss
  318. Bliss says:
    @res

    Your reasons for calling me names on the other hand tend to be laughable. Or would you care to point one out where you are actually correct?

    Here are a couple good reasons why you deserved to be called a moron:

    1. Insisting that “population increase” needs to be adjusted for deaths. When by definition it already did.

    2. Your pathetic excuses for not considering family size of homesteads when comparing the homesteader population to the non-homesteader population. No possible excuse could justify assuming one person per homestead.

    Homesteading was a big deal in America for a long time (over half a century). It is estimated that 30% of Americans have a homesteader ancestor. Your ridiculous calculation of it’s size and impact (“tenths of a percent) proves you are a moron.

    • Replies: @res
  319. Twinkie says:
    @res

    As I said: I sincerely hope you are just trolling and in reality are not this stupid.

    In the beginning, I thought he was just juvenile and dishonest, selectively ignoring evidence that did not fit his assertions and only cherry-picking data that did. After probing his basic mathematical ability, however, I realized that he is actually of low intelligence. Definitely low quantitative IQ (doesn’t understand basic math). Certainly low verbal IQ (resorts to name-calling and displays lack of logical argument structure). Don’t know about his visuospatial IQ, but my guess is that he couldn’t shoot an arrow or a bullet even if his life depended on it.

    I suggest we stop engaging him. I think we both fed his stupidity/trolling sufficiently. Anyone who bothers to read the actual arguments can tell how enormously patient and indulgent we have been (except, it appears, a couple of blacks who have jumped to his defense – also without understanding the basic math behind the arguments). I am going to stop, in any case, because interactions with him will further lower my estimation of black people. And I don’t want to go there.

    • Replies: @res
  320. Bliss says:
    @Twinkie

    I never claimed “racial superiority for all East Asians.”

    You have been claiming “genetic advantage” for the East Asian race. What’s the difference?

    the law of the large numbers of being what it is, East Asians will tend to produce more winners (at least as a percentage) in sports that are correlated to visuospatial ability…

    The law of large numbers certainly does not apply to a marginal sport with few contestants, like Archery. Yet you have latched onto this tiny competition as if it is conclusive proof of superior visuospatial ability in East Asians.

    It makes more sense to compare the races in sports and activities that actual large numbers participate in, such as football (soccer) and driving. As I have shown in this page the driving IQ of east asians is below average for developed countries. And in Football East Asians are below average as well.

    First of all, why are you separating out men from women, instead of counting the combined total?

    Because it dismantles your racial claims. All you are left with now is the impressive (but still not total) domination of south korean women in archery.

    If South Koreans have a “genetic advantage” in Archery, why aren’t their men dominating like their women? Why are North Koreans performing poorly?

    Bottom line, it is not genes but the amount of investment in Archery that explains the superior performance of South Koreans in Olympics.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    , @res
  321. Bliss says:
    @Twinkie

    Your response to a very basic probability equation (seriously, what educated adult doesn’t understand 0.6667^4?)

    The very fact that you were resorting to such equations to solve something so simple a child could figure it out proves that you are a clueless imbecile who overthinks. And you invariably came to bullshit conclusions with your math. You couldn’t even do simple addition as I showed early on.

    Basically, you are just a racist, a bullshit artist, a mentally disturbed gun freak. I predict you will crack someday and go on a shooting rampage.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
  322. Twinkie says:
    @Bliss

    You have been claiming “genetic advantage” for the East Asian race. What’s the difference?

    So there is no genetic advantage in sports?

    The law of large numbers certainly does not apply to a marginal sport with few contestants, like Archery.

    And shooting. Guess what? Do you know why there are “few contestants” in archery? You have to make it through the Olympic qualifiers. Many countries that field archery (or shooting) teams fail to qualify.

    It makes more sense to compare the races in sports and activities that actual large numbers participate in

    Sounds like all your mathematical arguments about archery and shooting turned out to be faulty, so now you are switching arguments to invalidate the entire fields under discussion until now.

    Are you ever going to admit that you got the math wrong? Or are you just shamelessly going to ooze away to another argument once it has been demonstrated that you can’t even add or read correctly?

    As I have shown in this page the driving IQ of east asians is below average for developed countries.

    Different environments with ZERO control for any of the variables (sex, age, training level, enforcement, regulations, etc. etc.). I am not going to go over this again. In the same countries, East Asians – time and again – show lower crash numbers per driver (your claim that they simply drive less is unpersuasive and unproven given the disparity in crash rates).

    And in Football East Asians are below average as well.

    Yup. Soccer has a lot of running, and the ability to suddenly sprint to chase the ball is important. East Asians – on average – don’t have this ability as much as sub-Saharan Africans do. Just like sub-Saharan Africans have low visuospatial IQ averages and don’t do well in archery and shooting (or doing math)… or, for that matter, sports that rely heavily on fast neural response time.

    If South Koreans have a “genetic advantage” in Archery, why aren’t their men dominating like their women?

    South Korean men DO dominate as I showed above. Not as much as the women do, true. One possible reason might be that East Asian-white gap in visuospatial IQ might be greater among women than that among men (there is evidence that men in general have higher visuospatial IQ than women).

    Why are North Koreans performing poorly?

    Because life outcome is heredity + environment, not just heredity. Even you understand this. After all, why aren’t African teams from Africa winning World Cup all the time? According to FIFA rankings, Senegal is the highest ranked sub-Saharan African team at… rank no. 27. Indeed, historically, only Senegal, Ghana, and Cameroon ever reached the quarter finals at the World Cup, and none has reached a semi-final (which Korea has once).

    Bottom line, it is not genes but the amount of investment in Archery that explains the superior performance of South Koreans in Olympics.

    Ah, but then there is China doing so well in shooting, another high visuospatial ability sport.

    So, let me get this straight: when blacks win at some sports, it’s because they are naturally good at them, but when East Asians win at other sports, it’s simply because they have more money to invest in them. Do I have this right?

  323. Twinkie says:
    @Bliss

    The very fact that you were resorting to such equations to solve something so simple a child could figure it out proves that you are a clueless imbecile who overthinks. And you invariably came to bullshit conclusions with your math. You couldn’t even do simple addition as I showed early on.

    Very sad. You think a basic probability equation is “bullshit.” And then you just keep on with ad hominem like a low IQ person you are. Do you even realize you fit the racist stereotype of blacks as monkey-like idiots who can’t do math and then get emotional and start screaming curses, and (if in person) resort to violence to win arguments?

    Seriously, man, I think some people here would think that you were a sock puppet of some racist who wants to portray blacks as dumb animals.

    Basically, you are just a racist, a bullshit artist, a mentally disturbed gun freak. I predict you will crack someday and go on a shooting rampage.

    You would like that, wouldn’t ya? As a devout and God-fearing Catholic, I would never raise my hand in anything but defense of myself, my family, my community, and my country, but if I did decide to shoot someone deserving, I will be sure to hit the mark, what with my high visuospatial IQ, as I have done numerous times before.

    But I am worried for YOU. The composition of SCOTUS will soon change, and there is a good chance that affirmative action will be dismantled substantially. Where will you be when you will have to earn your keep based on your actual cognitive capacity?

  324. res says:
    @Bliss

    Here are a couple good reasons why you deserved to be called a moron:

    First, I will note that these are specifically chosen examples of yours. Therefore one would expect them to be your best cases.

    So let’s discuss them.

    1. Insisting that “population increase” needs to be adjusted for deaths. When by definition it already did.

    population increase = births + immigration – deaths – emigration
    (since you seem unable to understand this I will include a reference: https://www.ck12.org/biology/population-growth-in-biology/lesson/Population-Growth-BIO/ )
    new people = births + immigration
    Therefore
    new people = population increase + deaths + emigration

    I believe emigration from the US was small in those years (and have been unable to find data) so am ignoring it (i.e. I am underestimating how far you were off).

    Therefore we are left with:
    new people = population increase + deaths
    Which is why I discussed the mortality rates in my initial comment where I reworked your math and gave the one word response “Deaths” when I (correctly) called you a moron. This is high school biology and elementary school math.

    This example clearly shows how clueless you are. That you chose it as your first example was beyond my wildest hopes.

    2. Your pathetic excuses for not considering family size of homesteads when comparing the homesteader population to the non-homesteader population. No possible excuse could justify assuming one person per homestead.

    It depends on the metric one is using. I was looking at the percentage of people receiving homesteads in a given decade. You seem to be relying on an unsubstantiated estimate of “30% of Americans have a homesteader ancestor.” These metrics should not come up with the same number, but can be used to check each other for believability.

    Let’s revisit your average family size of 7 statement. Where did you get that? The numbers I see are household size under 5 in 1890 and declining from there: https://www.infoplease.com/us/household-and-family-statistics/us-households-size-1790-2006
    Here is a visualization of the frequency of different family sizes: https://qz.com/1099800/average-size-of-a-us-family-from-1850-to-the-present/

    My specific argument above was that family size can not be used as a simple multiplicative correction because children and spouses may also have received homesteads (e.g. to create family blocks), and in some cases people received multiple homesteads. Both of these result in multiple counting of individuals using your approach.

    I don’t see a way to get the correct family size correction so chose to focus on individuals who received a homestead in a given decade since we have good numbers to calculate that.

    Homesteading was a big deal in America for a long time (over half a century). It is estimated that 30% of Americans have a homesteader ancestor. Your ridiculous calculation of it’s size and impact (“tenths of a percent) proves you are a moron.

    I agree with the first sentence. It was a big deal. I very specifically called out what I have an issue with both in my very first comment on this subject and in comment 294 above. My metric (which came out as tenths of a percent in the peak decade) is what it is AND is a correct calculation. Which metric is best to use is another question.

    Here is my original entry into this topic (already linked above): http://www.unz.com/isteve/is-neymar-black-brazil-and-the-painful-relativity-of-race/#comment-2402309

    You very specifically said:

    Wrong. It was very large, especially considering that the total population then was a fraction of what it is now.

    the number of homesteaders must have been over 10 million.

    and I responded:

    So I think it likely that your 10 million estimate is a significant overestimate. Whether or not the actual number is “especially large” in the context of the US populations of the time spread out over three generations is something of a judgment call, but I tend to agree with Lot.

    I stand by that. It is worth noting that the “percent with a homesteading ancestor” tends to inflate the apparent importance (the reason both you and the NPS choose to use it of course) because it only requires 1 of 16 great-great-grandparents (etc.) be a homesteader to qualify.

    P.S. To play devil’s advocate for a moment. I think looking at homesteading in individual states would make a more persuasive argument for how important it was in those places.

  325. res says:
    @Twinkie

    I suggest we stop engaging him. I think we both fed his stupidity/trolling sufficiently.

    This is sensible. I will try…

    I am going to stop, in any case, because interactions with him will further lower my estimation of black people. And I don’t want to go there.

    That is one of the worst aspects of conversations like this. Especially given that the people here are likely to be part of the “talented tenth” or better. I actually have a better impression from (most of) my real life encounters.

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  326. res says:
    @Bliss

    Bottom line, it is not genes but the amount of investment in Archery that explains the superior performance of South Koreans in Olympics.

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/false_dichotomy

    Both matter.

  327. Okechukwu says:
    @Twinkie

    What I claimed was that East Asians tend to dominate shooting sports, including archery, because success in these sports are correlated to high visuospatial ability, something IQ researchers have repeatedly found in East Asian populations

    Whatever anyone dominates is due to something called TRAINING. You cannot tell me that if we take a bunch of Ugandans and raise them in a similar culture and apply the same standards of discipline and dedication that East Asians will necessarily out-shoot them. High visuospatial ability? LOL. Where are the American East Asians in shooting events? If East Asians have this innate predisposition, don’t you think that they would naturally gravitate to those sports? Don’t you think that the US Olympic Committee would seek them out?

    It was once presumed that in martial arts, East Asians had certain irreplicable innate tendencies perfected over thousands of years of natural selection and impenetrable confusion philosophy passed on over the eons … blah blah blah. Well it turns out that all it takes is training to break boards and bricks with your bare hands. And all it takes is training kick an East Asian’s ass in their own martial arts. Judo, karate and taekwondo tournaments are dominated by non-East Asians. And in mixed-martial arts East Asians are pretty much an extinct species. They competed in the beginning, but after innumerable ass whoopins’ they no longer venture into the octagon or other MMA arenas, save for Japan where the competition is not as acute and where many of the events are scripted like WWE. The best PfP MMA fighters are blacks and whites. East Asians don’t even figure in the conversation.

    like people of West African descent excelling in sports that are highly correlated to the presence of fast twitch muscle fibers (e.g. sprinting).

    West Africans don’t dominate sprints, Americans and Jamaicans do. In Jamaica, in particular, you have an exquisite test bed that should go to dispel all your HBD stupidity. This is a tiny, impoverished island nation that through its total immersion in a culture of sprinting became a global superpower. Its only near-peer competitor is the United States — a vast, wealthy first world country with 323 million more people. The genetic particularities of Jamaica are mirrored in the people of other Caribbean nations, and indeed among black people in the United States itself. Yet none of them are anywhere near as successful.

    Americans and Jamaicans aren’t even of exclusive West African descent. Usain Bolt could very well have a combination of European and Amerindian genetics such that his West African genetic quotient is below 60%. That’s assuming that the 60% is even exclusively of West African origins since slaves were also taken from East and Central Africa. If West Africans have a genotypic or phenotypic advantage independent of training and dedication and resources and culture (i.e., environment), then we would expect actual West Africans of 100% West African genetics to dominate, and they don’t. This is similar to the basketball analogy that is often presented in a similar vein due to the dominance of black Americans in basketball. Well it turns out that the real Africans, who should have enhanced quantities of whatever it is black Americans are alleged to have, actually suck at basketball. They routinely get killed in international competition.

    With the fraudulent cheerypicking and convenience sampling you pseudoscience exponents employ one can “prove” anything. It’s why your ideology is confined to the dank underbelly of the Internet where it hides and festers in an atmosphere saturated with confirmation bias. I dare you to turn yourself into a laughingstock by presenting your “data” at an actual scientific conference in the real world. I would imagine that East Asian scientists will be among the first to shoot you down (Haha. Pun intended).

    • Agree: Bliss
    • LOL: res
  328. Okechukwu says:
    @res

    That is one of the worst aspects of conversations like this. Especially given that the people here are likely to be part of the “talented tenth” or better.

    You two clowns are getting your asses handed to you by Bliss. I’ve seen you invoke this exceptionalism notion before, as if to suggest than an articulate and knowledgeable black writer is something extraordinary. Well, if you would expand your interactions beyond the insular circle-jerk hovels you dwell in, you will discover that there’s nothing particularly noteworthy about a black commentator debating circles around you. I can think of dozens of sites where black posters will ravage you and that other idiot Twinkie.

    Yes, Bliss is a brilliant interlocutor. But that brilliance does not emerge at any reduced frequency as a percentage of the black population relative to whites or Asians or anyone else.

    • Replies: @res
  329. Sparkon says:

    The illustration atop Anatoly Karlin’s article is quite interesting as a surrealistic cartoon worth a few chuckles. Typically, the artist gets no credit, but the drawing did bring to mind that old chestnut about the visitor to the sculptor’s studio who’d just learned of his plans to sculpt an elephant.

    “How do you sculpt an elephant?” the visitor asked.

    “Very carefully,” the sculptor replied, “I chip away all the parts that don’t look like the elephant.”

    There may be any number of metrics to measure or evaluate hand-eye coordination. Some say archery, but what about free throw shooting?

    I would argue that some extremely fine hand-eye coordination is displayed by those individuals with artistic ability, as demonstrated and measured by accurate rendering, or portrayal, of a three-dimensional object on a two-dimensional surface.

    The ability to draw an accurate likeness of a human being demonstrates hand-eye coordination par excellence.

    So take the test, and draw your own conclusions.

  330. res says:
    @Okechukwu

    You two clowns are getting your asses handed to you by Bliss.

    Wow. When I say your last comment I thought “Here is the B team (Bliss would be the C team) trying to make up for the idiocy.” Now you disappoint even that assessment of your ability.

    Reread my comment 328 where I explain in detail how population increase relates to births, deaths, immigration, and emigration. Looks like you are a moron too. I thought better of you.

    as if to suggest than an articulate and knowledgeable black writer is something extraordinary.

    This would be more compelling if you were…better. And yes, “articulate and knowledgeable black writer”s exist. Thomas Sowell, Glenn Loury, John McWhorter, and most recently Columbia undergraduate Coleman Hughes all immediately come to mind.

    Yes, Bliss is a brilliant interlocutor.

    LOL!

    But that brilliance does not emerge at any reduced frequency as a percentage of the black population relative to whites or Asians or anyone else.

    Any number of objective metrics (e.g. see Charles Murray’s Human Accomplishment) would beg to differ. Sorry, but it appears reality is racist in this respect.

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  331. Okechukwu says:
    @res

    This would be more compelling if you were…better. And yes, “articulate and knowledgeable black writer”s exist. Thomas Sowell, Glenn Loury, John McWhorter, and most recently Columbia undergraduate Coleman Hughes all immediately come to mind.

    Hate to break it to you but these black conservatives are not sympathetic to your racist pseudoscience, they’re rather unwelcoming. They are on the front lines in the battle to keep that junk out of conservative thought. Firstly, they all believe, rightly, that it’s complete garbage. Secondly, it frustrates their mission to draw more black people under the conservative tent, something that would be healthy for American polity as a whole.

    To quote Sowell:

    Perhaps the strongest evidence against a genetic basis for intergroup differences in IQ is that the average level of mental test performance has changed very significantly for whole populations over time and, moreover, particular ethnic groups within the population, Jews and other immigrant groups were thought to be below average in intelligence’. It was neither folklore nor anything as subjective as thoughts. It was based on hard data, as hard as any data in The Bell Curve…. The implications of such rising patterns of mental test performance is devastating to the central hypothesis…. The failure to draw the logical inference seems puzzling. Blacks today are just as racially different from whites of two generations ago as they are from whites today. Yet the data suggest that the number of questions that blacks answer correctly on IQ tests today is very similar to the number answered correctly by past generations of whites. If race A differs from race B in IQ, and two generations of race A differ from each other by the same amount, where is the logic in suggesting that the IQ differences are even partly racial? Herrnstein and Murray do not address this question…. Perhaps the most intellectually troubling aspect of The Bell Curve is the authors’ uncritical approach to statistical correlations. One of the first things taught in introductory statistics is that correlation is not causation. It is also one of the first things forgotten, and one of the most widely ignored facts in public policy research. The statistical term “multicollinearity,” dealing with spurious correlations, appears only once in this massive book.

    http://www.bradford-delong.com/2018/06/three-conservatives-on-why-charles-murrays-ideas-are-bankupt-in-the-academic-intellectual-marketplace.html

    To quote Loury:

    They [The Bell Curve Authors] begin by seeking the causes of behavior and end by reducing the human subject to a mechanism whose horizon is fixed by some combination of genetic endowment and social law. Yet we, even the “dullest” of us, are so much more than that…. Can we sensibly aspire to a more complete social integration than has yet been achieved of those who now languish at the bottom of American society? A political movement that answers “no” to this question must fail, and richly deserves to.

    Herrnstein and Murray are not entirely direct on this point. They stress, plausibly enough, that we must be realistic in formulating policy, taking due account of the unequal distribution of intellectual aptitudes…. Implicit in their argument is the judgment that we shall have to get used to there being a substantial minority of our fellows who, because of their low intelligence, may fail to perform adequately in their roles as workers, parents, and citizens. I think this is quite wrong. Social science ultimately leads the authors astray on the political and moral fundamentals….

    http://www.bradford-delong.com/2018/06/three-conservatives-on-why-charles-murrays-ideas-are-bankupt-in-the-academic-intellectual-marketplace.html

    John McWhorter published an article last year that eerily seemed directed at you personally. Well, not really. But you are sort of an archetypal figure. An obsessive, myopic, thoroughly indoctrinated IQ cultist, blind to the facts, blind to reason and blind to reality.

    Stop Obsessing Over Race and IQ

    That is: Intelligence researchers, writing in dense, obscure academic journals, will continue to quietly present data that show that race influences the heritability of IQ to certain degrees; others will present data in disagreement. I hope they ultimately settle on a verdict that environment really does entirely trump the heritable portion of the IQ difference; possibly they will not. However, in the wider world, I see no reason that this research should be “faced” and subject to ongoing “debate.” For example, undergraduates should not feel comfortable bringing up these data in class discussions unrelated to genetic research; society would gain nothing from their doing so. Our mainstream media organs, while remiss in their current tendency to insist the issue is settled, will not be remiss in declining to program articles and symposia exploring it out of some kind of “curiosity.”

    Those who continue to follow this research and decry in the blogosphere that America refuses to “face” its implications need to consider what they are actually calling for. None of the three hypothetical scenarios I have considered would serve any purpose in the real-world America we live in. What, then, would be the purpose of dwelling on the race-and-IQ issue at all? If these objectors did somehow make America openly and ongoingly designate black people as, on the average, less intelligent than others, upon what constructive grounds could they congratulate themselves for having succeeded?

    https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2017/07/10/charles-murray-racism-education/

    Any number of objective metrics (e.g. see Charles Murray’s Human Accomplishment) would beg to differ. Sorry, but it appears reality is racist in this respect.

    Accomplishments invariably are viewed through a cultural prism. In other words, who is or isn’t accomplished is highly subjective. The issue is innate human intelligence. There are hunter-gatherer people going around in loincloth who are innately more intelligent than both you and Murray.

    The problem is that a basic level, you just can’t seem grasp how human intelligence works, which is rather ironic given your obsession with the topic. We cannot use accomplishments as a barometer of human intelligence because in the grand sweep of human existence such things are ephemeral and transitory. Murray’s own ancestors essentially were cavemen contemporaneous with highly sophisticated civilizations elsewhere. Those great civilizations are all defunct. Accomplishments or lack of same are driven by a multiplicity of factors of which intelligence is just one factor. All humans have intelligence. Therefore assuming we adopt your paradigm of what it means to be accomplished, to the extent that certain cultures are less accomplished would indicate that factors distinct from intelligence played a decisive role.

    This is pretty simple stuff. That you just can’t seem to get it I think is rather telling. Perhaps you should desist from pontificating on intelligence if you can’t even wrap your mind around basic concepts.

    • LOL: res

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Anatoly Karlin Comments via RSS