The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 James Thompson ArchiveBlogview
IQ Does Not Exist (Lead Poisoning Aside)
Lead poisoning reduces social mobility
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

Lead_poisoning There are still many people who believe that intelligence does not exist or that it cannot be measured, particularly if the summary result is given as a single figure. The argument seems to be that single figure cannot possibly represent their myriad abilities. Quite so.

What are they to make of a recent finding by the Dunedin study team? This is an epidemiologically based study of child development in Dunedin, New Zealand, and it suggests that lead ingested in childhood is bad for intelligence and for later social mobility. If you maintain that intelligence does not exist, you need not be concerned.

March 28, 2017
Association of Childhood Blood Lead Levels with Cognitive Function and Socioeconomic Status at Age 38 Years and With IQ Change and Socioeconomic Mobility Between Childhood and Adulthood
Aaron Reuben; Avshalom Caspi; Daniel W. Belsky; et al

The authors say:

A prospective cohort study based on a population-representative 1972-1973 birth cohort from New Zealand; the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study observed participants to age 38 years (until December 2012).
EXPOSURES
Childhood lead exposure ascertained as blood lead levels measured at age 11years. High blood lead levels were observed among children from all socioeconomic status levels in this cohort.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The IQ (primary outcome) and indexes of Verbal Comprehension, Perceptual Reasoning, Working Memory, and Processing Speed (secondary outcomes) were assessed at age 38 years using the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–IV (WAIS-IV; IQ range, 40-160). Socioeconomic status (primary outcome) was assessed at age 38 years using the New Zealand Socioeconomic Index-2006 (NZSEI-06; range, 10 [lowest]-90 [highest]).
RESULTS
Of 1037 original participants, 1007 were alive at age 38 years, of whom 565 (56%) had been lead tested at age 11 years (54% male; 93% white). Mean (SD) blood lead level at age 11 years was 10.99 (4.63) μg/dL. Among blood-tested participants included at age 38 years, mean WAIS-IV score was 101.16 (14.82) and mean NZSEI-06 score was 49.75 (17.12). After adjusting for maternal IQ, childhood IQ, and childhood socioeconomic status, each 5-μg/dL higher level of blood lead in childhood was associated with a 1.61-point lower score (95% CI, −2.48 to −0.74) in adult IQ, a 2.07-point lower score (95% CI, −3.14 to −1.01) in perceptual reasoning, and a 1.26-point lower score (95% CI, −2.38 to −0.14) in working memory. Associations of childhood blood lead level with deficits in verbal comprehension and processing speed were not statistically significant. After adjusting for confounders, each 5-μg/dL higher level of blood lead in childhood was associated with a 1.79-unit lower score (95% CI, −3.17 to −0.40) in socioeconomic status. An association between greater blood lead levels and a decline in IQ and socioeconomic status from childhood to adulthood was observed with 40% of the association with downward mobility mediated by cognitive decline from childhood.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this cohort born in New Zealand in 1972-1973, childhood lead exposure was associated with lower cognitive function and socioeconomic status at age 38 years and with declines in IQ and with downward social mobility. Childhood lead exposure may have long-term ramifications. JAMA. 2017;317(12):1244-1251. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.1712

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B3c4TxciNeJZTS1JYU9FT2UxUDQ

The big advantage of this sample is that it is very well drawn up to be representative of the New Zealand population, and by implication representative of European populations. It has been closely studied and assiduously followed up. Happily, we also have a good genetic study of the participants, so it is apposite to give those results. Sorry for this nested parenthetical approach, but it provides context.

The Genetics of Success: How Single-Nucleotide Polymorphisms Associated With Educational Attainment Relate to Life-Course Development.

Daniel W. Belsky, Terrie E. Moffitt, David L. Corcoran, Benjamin Domingue, HonaLee Harrington, Sean Hogan, Renate Houts, Sahttp://www.paulgraham.com/say.htmlendhya Ramrakha, Karen Sugden, Benjamin S. Williams, Richie Poulton, Avshalom Caspi.

June 1, 2016. Psychological Science Vol 27, Issue 7, 2016

Abstract
A previous genome-wide association study (GWAS) of more than 100,000 individuals identified molecular-genetic predictors of educational attainment. We undertook in-depth life-course investigation of the polygenic score derived from this GWAS using the four-decade Dunedin Study (N = 918). There were five main findings. First, polygenic scores predicted adult economic outcomes even after accounting for educational attainments. Second, genes and environments were correlated: Children with higher polygenic scores were born into better-off homes. Third, children’s polygenic scores predicted their adult outcomes even when analyses accounted for their social-class origins; social-mobility analysis showed that children with higher polygenic scores were more upwardly mobile than children with lower scores. Fourth, polygenic scores predicted behavior across the life course, from early acquisition of speech and reading skills through geographic mobility and mate choice and on to financial planning for retirement. Fifth, polygenic-score associations were mediated by psychological characteristics, including intelligence, self-control, and interpersonal skill. Effect sizes were small. Factors connecting DNA sequence with life outcomes may provide targets for interventions to promote population-wide positive development.

Of course, this is the sort of snappy title and genetic finding which drives some people to doubt the existence of intelligence. It is against this background that the neurotoxic effects of lead are interesting. Crucially, lead exposure in New Zealand in the 1980s did not follow a social class gradient. It mostly came from car exhausts, and was thus an equal opportunity toxin.

Of 1037 participants in the original cohort, 1007 were still alive at age 38 years, 565 (56%) of whom had been lead tested at age 11 years (303 [54%] male; 525 [93%] white). Participants alive at age 38 years with childhood blood lead data (n=565) and without childhood blood lead data (n=442) did not differ to a statistically significant extent from each other in terms of their mothers’ IQ scores or their social class origins, but those without blood lead data did have lower mean childhood IQ scores as a group.

The differences are not big, but they are linear, suggesting a dose-response relationship.
Lead levels IQ and social mobility

The correlation between childhood blood level and age 38 IQ is merely -.11 which is the sort of size I usually ignore, yet the mean differences are instructive, as shown above.

Lead and child and maternal IQ

Table 2 is interesting at many levels. Maternal IQ, tested on verbal material only, correlates at r= 0.38 with child IQ, and rises to r= 0.44 at age 38, long after the child has left home, which is the typical pattern. Childhood IQ is a better predictor of socio-economic status at age 38 (r= 0.43) than childhood economic status (r= 0.35).

The net result is that after controlling for participants’ own childhood IQ score, their mothers’ IQ score, and their socioeconomic background, each 5-μg/dL higher level of blood lead in childhood was associated with an additional 1.61-point lower score (95% CI, −2.48 to −0.74; P<.001) in the full scale IQ.

Children with higher levels of blood lead at age 11 years scored lowest on indexes tapping perceptual reasoning and working memory.

First, childhood blood lead level was associated with lower adult IQ scores nearly 3 decades later, reflecting cognitive decline following childhood lead exposure. There were significant associations between childhood blood lead levels and lower scores on the Perceptual Reasoning IQ and the Working Memory IQ, but no significant association with the Verbal Comprehension IQ or the Processing Speed IQ. These associations remained significant after adjusting for the participants’ childhood IQs, their mothers’ IQs, and their social class backgrounds.

Second, childhood blood lead level was associated with lower adult socioeconomic status, reflecting downward social mobility following childhood lead exposure. These associations too remained significant after adjusting for the participants’ childhood IQs, their mothers’ IQs, and their social class backgrounds.

Third, the relationship between childhood lead exposure and downward social mobility by midlife was partially but significantly mediated by cognitive decline following childhood lead exposure.

In conclusion, this study shows how a neuro-toxin can have an effect on intelligence, of similar magnitude to low birth weight. By the way, intelligence can be influenced by the environment despite having a large genetic component. By the way, the effect shows up on the “single figure” of Wechsler Full Scale IQ, and by looking at the 10 subtests you can identify which abilities are most affected. The exposure to lead decreases ability (one figure) and thereby reduces achieved socio-economic status (one figure). No surprise for us, but possibly a surprise to some sociologists. The effect is not uniform, and it is not clear why something like Processing Speed is unaffected. Processing speed certainly slows with age and is often poor in children with brain related disorders. This is minor puzzle in the general picture, but since this is an excellent representative sample it is more likely to be right than the necessarily selective clinical brain damage samples.

Final word: if someone tells you they do not believe in intelligence reply that you wish them well, but that if they have children they should keep them well away from neuro-toxins because, among other things, they reduce social mobility.

 
• Category: Science • Tags: IQ, Lead Poisoning 
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. JayMan says: • Website

    Here’s my problem with this study: it doesn’t really address the genetic confound. Yes, it’s totally plausible that lead negatively impacts IQ, but then it also sounded plausible that neighborhood deprivation did so, as well.

    I’d feel much more comfortable if someone had large pedigree study on lead exposure akin to Amir Sariaslan’s work (Sariaslan et al 2016).

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    Thanks Jayman. Not sure about that. Sure, Amir was able to show that social drift accounted for the loss of SES in schizophrenia, but I think that the Dunedin study does not have too much of a problem in that regard. I will think about it further.
    , @attilathehen
    Jayman, you are black. You belong to the race with the lowest IQ.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    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.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /jthompson/iq-does-not-exist-lead-poisoning-aside/#comment-1822573
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. @JayMan
    Here's my problem with this study: it doesn't really address the genetic confound. Yes, it's totally plausible that lead negatively impacts IQ, but then it also sounded plausible that neighborhood deprivation did so, as well.

    I'd feel much more comfortable if someone had large pedigree study on lead exposure akin to Amir Sariaslan's work (Sariaslan et al 2016).

    Thanks Jayman. Not sure about that. Sure, Amir was able to show that social drift accounted for the loss of SES in schizophrenia, but I think that the Dunedin study does not have too much of a problem in that regard. I will think about it further.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Amir Sariaslan
    I tend to, rather unsurprisingly, agree with JayMan on this. There is substantial non-random selection into deprived neighbourhoods, where the lead exposure is presumably higher. One would need to account for such effects by using adequate research designs that can handle unmeasured confounders.
    , @attilathehen
    James Thompson are you married? If so, is your wife Asian or black?
  3. @James Thompson
    Thanks Jayman. Not sure about that. Sure, Amir was able to show that social drift accounted for the loss of SES in schizophrenia, but I think that the Dunedin study does not have too much of a problem in that regard. I will think about it further.

    I tend to, rather unsurprisingly, agree with JayMan on this. There is substantial non-random selection into deprived neighbourhoods, where the lead exposure is presumably higher. One would need to account for such effects by using adequate research designs that can handle unmeasured confounders.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    But there was no social gradient to this exposure, authors said..
    , @Harold
    As a New Zealander, albeit not very familiar with Dunedin, my thoughts are that Dunedin doesn’t have deprived neighbourhoods with more lead exposure. Take a look at a satellite view of Dunedin.

    Maybe we need better research design, but for this matter, I would bet it wouldn’t change anything.
  4. FKA Max says:

    I just watched Emil Kirkegaard’s recent Youtube interview, in which lead poisoning was one of the topics discussed in regards to IQ. Mr. Kirkegaard stated, that there had not been any “environmental” ways to boost IQ found yet, only “environmental” causes which depressed IQ, e.g., he gave the example of lead poisoning; but as I understand it, iodine has been found and confirmed to be a quite significant “environmental” factor in boosting IQ, and it is also relatively easy and cost-effective to do so. Am I wrong? Is the iodine-IQ story/research just “fake (feel good) news?”:

    According to public health experts, iodisation of salt may be the world’s simplest and most cost-effective measure available to improve health, only costing US$0.05 per person per year.

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/height-changes-from-1914-2014/#comment-1506435

    Iodine Deficiency – An Old Epidemic Is Back
    The mineral is much more important tha[n] most realize
    [...]
    Scientists James Feyrer, Dimitra Politi, and David N. Weil have found in the U.S. that the proliferation of iodized salt increased IQ by 15 points in some areas.

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/what-do-iq-researchers-really-think-about-the-flynn-effect/#comment-1706913

    Lead poisoning is briefly discussed from about 10 minutes into the video:

    Emil OW Kirkegaard: IQ And The Future Of Eugenics

    Read More
    • Replies: @FKA Max
    Conflicting and contradictory evidence. My personal opinion is that iodine is important to cognitive development. Also the authors of the first study referenced did not specify, as far as I could tell, if the study was conducted in (historically) naturally iodine sufficient (IS) or in severely iodine deficient (ID) areas; they just mentioned that ``universal salt iodization has been implemented in all counties in China since 1995'':

    Emil OW Kirkegaard‏ @KirkegaardEmil

    No effect of folic acid or iron supplements or multimicronutrient (15 vit and mins) on IQ in rural China. N=1744.
     
    - https://twitter.com/kirkegaardemil/status/689494681554542592

    Prenatal Micronutrient Supplementation Is Not Associated with Intellectual Development of Young School-Aged Children Li et al. (2015) http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Prenatal-Micronutrient-Supplementation-Is-Not-Associated-with-Intellectual-Development-of-Young-School-Aged-Children.pdf

    In addition, iodine deficiency is associated with poor development, and iodine deficiency during pregnancy has negative effects on the developing fetus and mental development of the offspring. However, universal salt iodization has been implemented in all counties in China since 1995, individual iodine nutrition has improved, and the current iodine nutrition status of the population is adequate (20).
     

    Siberian Fox‏ @SilverVVulpes
    Replying to @PsyBrief

    @PsychologyBrief @KirkegaardEmil mums diet and early diet of child(i.e. mil of the baby)
     
    - https://twitter.com/SilverVVulpes/status/690922132876980224

    The effects of iodine on intelligence in children: a meta-analysis of studies conducted in China Qian et al. (2005)

    http://apjcn.org/update%5Cpdf%5C2005%5C1%5C32-42%5C32.pdf

    The intelligence damage of children exposed to severe ID was profound, demonstrated by 12.45 IQ points loss and they recovered 8.7 IQ points with iodine supplementation or IS before and during pregnancy. Iodine supplementation before and during pregnancy to women living in severe ID areas could prevent their children from intelligence deficit. This effect becomes evident in children born 3.5 years after the iodine supplementation program was introduced.
     
    , @anon

    Mr. Kirkegaard stated, that there had not been any “environmental” ways to boost IQ found yet, only “environmental” causes which depressed IQ, e.g., he gave the example of lead poisoning; but as I understand it, iodine has been found and confirmed to be a quite significant “environmental” factor in boosting IQ, and it is also relatively easy and cost-effective to do so. Am I wrong?
     
    He may have meant that iodine doesn't increase IQ above its natural (i.e. genetic) potential.

    Iodine deficiency dramatically lowers IQ and adding iodine i.e. removing the deficiency, lets it reach its natural limit but (if genetic IQ is true) it doesn't increase IQ above its genetic limit - only gene frequency can do that.

    Hence all the current programs to reduce iodine deficiency in Africa and the earlier programs in the western countries starting from the 1920s to add iodine to table salt (or to cattle feed in the milk drinking anglo countries).

    http://www.sightandlife.org/fileadmin/data/Magazine/2013/27_3_2013/iodine_nutrition_in_africa.pdf

    The iodine thing, along with the increased consumption of fish in the developing world, is a possible candidate for the Flynn effect.
  5. There are still many people who believe that intelligence does not exist or that it cannot be measured, particularly if the summary result is given as a single figure.

    These are two very different propositions, you know. It seems to me that anyone with IQ above 60 should understand that ‘intelligence’, by almost any definition, can not indeed be measured by a single number.

    Read More
    • Agree: CanSpeccy
    • Replies: @alan2102
    "It seems to me that anyone with IQ above 60 should understand that ‘intelligence’, by almost any definition, can not indeed be measured by a single number."

    Ha. Yes. But the psychometricians are desperate to claim otherwise; emotionally and intellectually, they are totally invested in that idea; "all in", so to say.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Consider what you are replying to. JT has merely affirmed that sometimes (quite often in fact) the results of tests of intelligence are "summarised" in a single figure. The appropriate question is as to whether the summary figure has any legitimate utility or evidentiary value.

    But maybe you are teasing the solemn. You have after all used the single figure of 60 to pretend to make your point. You seem to be adopting my (soft) thresholds point.
    , @pyrrhus
    But the fact that IQ doesn't measure every ability doesn't mean that the 'single number' doesn't have a lot of significance.
  6. There are still many people who believe that intelligence does not exist or that it cannot be measured, particularly if the summary result is given as a single figure. The argument seems to be that single figure cannot possibly represent their myriad abilities. Quite so.

    old can’t learn new tricks, it’s sad!1

    Two person with same ”general” IQ:

    Different personalities: different intrinsic motivations, different levels of CHARACTER [something many hbdds lacrimously accuse on the left to no have], different levels of psychological resilience, ETC

    Different ´PSYCHO-cognitive styles: H-verb/ L-quantit or High-emphatizing/L-systemizing, ETC…

    You just repeat the same thing since, i even don’t know more…

    No doubt ”hyper-systemizing typos” are not full-humans but proto-robots incapable to understand and be interested in many nuances that human mind usually have.

    It’s not pay attention to this details but just repeat the same vague informations about IQ, intelligence, whatever, cognitive psycho-logy.

    If every people with the same general IQ is also the same or very similar in other variables OR even with this diversity they still would produce the same results, i would not disagree with you. ”Even” in intelligence ACHIEVEMENTS they usually are very different.

    Yes i’m more emphatizing than systemizing, and this de-being-zation or massification of beings treating them as cold bricks in the wall no make sense for me.

    When IQ tests embodied creativity AND ratio-nality tests i will start to agree with you, more than now.

    Just because we have ”higher IQ” individuals who lacks character/rationality governing the west [well, since...], in other words, we treat intelligence as separated from psychological traits, creates a systemizing-meritocratic system to the above middle classes and sustain a malignantly emphasizing- elites, that all this problems are, again, happening.

    Read More
  7. @Amir Sariaslan
    I tend to, rather unsurprisingly, agree with JayMan on this. There is substantial non-random selection into deprived neighbourhoods, where the lead exposure is presumably higher. One would need to account for such effects by using adequate research designs that can handle unmeasured confounders.

    But there was no social gradient to this exposure, authors said..

    Read More
    • Replies: @Amir Sariaslan
    There may be other types of selection mechanisms that are not accounted for. We need better data and research designs to be more certain about the causal nature of the associations.
  8. @James Thompson
    But there was no social gradient to this exposure, authors said..

    There may be other types of selection mechanisms that are not accounted for. We need better data and research designs to be more certain about the causal nature of the associations.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    Ok. Now we look at the Italian study David Piffer mentioned. Also apparent lead effect on IQ in Italy. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935112002344

    Haven't read it yet, because bedtime. Cheers
  9. @Amir Sariaslan
    There may be other types of selection mechanisms that are not accounted for. We need better data and research designs to be more certain about the causal nature of the associations.

    Ok. Now we look at the Italian study David Piffer mentioned. Also apparent lead effect on IQ in Italy. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935112002344

    Haven’t read it yet, because bedtime. Cheers

    Read More
  10. FKA Max says:

    FYI:

    Only telling half the story, but at least IQ somewhat exists.

    Good News for the Older Mothers

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/03/well/family/good-news-for-the-older-mothers.html

    Alice Goisis, a research fellow at the London School of Economics and Political Science and the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research in Germany, and the lead author on the study, said, “the characteristics of older mothers have changed drastically over time.” In the older studies, she said, the women who were having children into their late 30s were more likely to be women who had many children, and possibly poorer, whereas in the later study, the millennium cohort study done in 2000-2, the older mothers were more likely to be educated, and socioeconomically better off. Twenty-six percent were giving birth to their first child at ages 35-39, as opposed to 11 percent in the 1958 study.

    “One question I am often asked is whether these results are suggesting that women should wait to have children so they will have smarter children, and the answer is that our results are not addressing that,” Dr. Goisis said.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FKA Max
    I just had another look at the NY Times article, specifically this sentence:

    “These women tend to be advantaged,” she said, and to take better care of themselves during pregnancy; they were less likely to smoke and more likely to breast-feed, compared to the younger mothers.
     
    Then I listened to this interview with Stuart Ritchie:

    Does Breastfeeding Increase IQ?
    More or Less: Behind the Stats

    A major 30-year study claims to show breastfed babies become more intelligent, higher earning adults. It's not the first time we've heard that breastfeeding raises IQ levels; but is this evidence any more convincing? Ruth Alexander and Hannah Moore explore the details with Dr Stuart Ritchie from The University of Edinburgh.
    This programme was first broadcast on the BBC World Service.
     

    - http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02rzdl8

    Mr. Ritchie doubts that breastfeeding increases cognitive ability, because the parents in the Brazilian study were not specifically tested for IQ, and he believes this to be a significant confounder/weakness of the study.

    Since my other comments in this thread were mostly concerning the relationship between iodine deficiency and lowered cognitive functioning/ability, I checked whether there were any differences in the iodine content of breast milk and infant formula. Again, there is conflicting evidence on the subject:

    Formula as Good as Breastmilk for Iodine Levels (2013)


    The mean age of the mothers was about 33, 62% were white, and 56% had a graduate or professional degree.
    Overall, Leung and colleagues found similar concentrations of urinary iodine across groups, and all met iodine sufficiency standards
    [...]
    Leung warned, however, that the study was limited because several potential confounders -- including iodine concentrations of maternal urine, breastmilk, maternal multivitamins, and infant formula -- were not measured.

    Also, the study involved a Boston-area convenience sample, making it a homogeneous population and it may not be representative of the general U.S. population. More studies would be needed to confirm whether these findings are similar for infants nationwide, she said.
     

    Iodine content of infant formulas and iodine intake of premature babies: high risk of iodine deficiency. Ares et al. (1994) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7820714

    As part of a study of thyroid function in premature babies, the iodine content of their mothers' breast milk, that of 32 formulas from different brands used in Spain, and that of 127 formulas used in other countries was determined. Breast milk contained more iodine--mean (SEM) 10 (1) microgram/dl--than most of the formulas, especially those for premature babies. Iodine intakes were therefore below the recommended daily amount (RDA) for newborns: babies of 27-30 weeks' gestational age took 3.1 (1.1) micrograms/day at 5 days of age and 29.8 (2.7) micrograms by 2 months of age. This problem is not exclusive to Spanish premature babies as the iodine content of many of the formulas on sale in other countries was also inadequate. It is concluded that preterm infants who are formula fed are at high risk of iodine deficiency.
     
    Could breastfeeding actually increase the IQ of infants due to breast milk containing more iodine on average than infant formula, if the mothers themselves are not suffering from iodine deficiency?
  11. FKA Max says:
    @FKA Max
    I just watched Emil Kirkegaard's recent Youtube interview, in which lead poisoning was one of the topics discussed in regards to IQ. Mr. Kirkegaard stated, that there had not been any ``environmental'' ways to boost IQ found yet, only ``environmental'' causes which depressed IQ, e.g., he gave the example of lead poisoning; but as I understand it, iodine has been found and confirmed to be a quite significant ``environmental'' factor in boosting IQ, and it is also relatively easy and cost-effective to do so. Am I wrong? Is the iodine-IQ story/research just ``fake (feel good) news?'':

    According to public health experts, iodisation of salt may be the world’s simplest and most cost-effective measure available to improve health, only costing US$0.05 per person per year.
     
    - http://www.unz.com/isteve/height-changes-from-1914-2014/#comment-1506435

    Iodine Deficiency – An Old Epidemic Is Back
    The mineral is much more important tha[n] most realize
    [...]
    Scientists James Feyrer, Dimitra Politi, and David N. Weil have found in the U.S. that the proliferation of iodized salt increased IQ by 15 points in some areas.
     
    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/what-do-iq-researchers-really-think-about-the-flynn-effect/#comment-1706913

    Lead poisoning is briefly discussed from about 10 minutes into the video:

    Emil OW Kirkegaard: IQ And The Future Of Eugenics

    https://youtu.be/nT4GMu_bFOE?t=9m57s

    Conflicting and contradictory evidence. My personal opinion is that iodine is important to cognitive development. Also the authors of the first study referenced did not specify, as far as I could tell, if the study was conducted in (historically) naturally iodine sufficient (IS) or in severely iodine deficient (ID) areas; they just mentioned that “universal salt iodization has been implemented in all counties in China since 1995”:

    Emil OW Kirkegaard‏ @KirkegaardEmil

    No effect of folic acid or iron supplements or multimicronutrient (15 vit and mins) on IQ in rural China. N=1744.

    https://twitter.com/kirkegaardemil/status/689494681554542592

    Prenatal Micronutrient Supplementation Is Not Associated with Intellectual Development of Young School-Aged Children Li et al. (2015) http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Prenatal-Micronutrient-Supplementation-Is-Not-Associated-with-Intellectual-Development-of-Young-School-Aged-Children.pdf

    In addition, iodine deficiency is associated with poor development, and iodine deficiency during pregnancy has negative effects on the developing fetus and mental development of the offspring. However, universal salt iodization has been implemented in all counties in China since 1995, individual iodine nutrition has improved, and the current iodine nutrition status of the population is adequate (20).

    Siberian Fox‏ @SilverVVulpes
    Replying to @PsyBrief

    @PsychologyBrief @KirkegaardEmil mums diet and early diet of child(i.e. mil of the baby)

    https://twitter.com/SilverVVulpes/status/690922132876980224

    The effects of iodine on intelligence in children: a meta-analysis of studies conducted in China Qian et al. (2005)

    http://apjcn.org/update%5Cpdf%5C2005%5C1%5C32-42%5C32.pdf

    The intelligence damage of children exposed to severe ID was profound, demonstrated by 12.45 IQ points loss and they recovered 8.7 IQ points with iodine supplementation or IS before and during pregnancy. Iodine supplementation before and during pregnancy to women living in severe ID areas could prevent their children from intelligence deficit. This effect becomes evident in children born 3.5 years after the iodine supplementation program was introduced.

    Read More
  12. hyperbola says:

    In medically related GWAS studies of “complex” diseases (e.g. Parkinsons), it is rather usual to find that large numbers of genetic variants can be related to the disease, but that many of them are neither necessary or sufficient. That is, inheritance of such a variant gene is statistically related to a cohort of people with the disease, but people with the disease do not necessarily have the genetic difference and those with the genetic variant do not necessarily have the disease.
    In short, the evidence is often that it is networks of large numbers of genetic changes that produce genetic susceptibility to specific genes. Conversely, single gene variants are often related to “rare” diseases (and usually considered to be about 1% of disease loading in a population).
    This means that all the “shortcuts” being taken by naive genetic screening are pretty useless. In the case of Parkinsons, the ca. 40 genes involved in the human population can only “explain” about 50% of inheritable effects, with the caveats noted above for individual genes.

    The general lesson is that we are dealing with very complex, highly integrated networks where it is the network rather than individual genes (factors) that is determinant. With sufficient complexity, individual effects are largely unknowable.

    “Intelligence” (whatever that is) may be a similar, partly unknowable complex network.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    As I understand it, it is generally agreed that what we call intelligence is based on many genes of small effect, most with more than one effect.
    , @anon

    In the case of Parkinsons, the ca. 40 genes involved in the human population can only “explain” about 50% of inheritable effects, with the caveats noted above for individual genes.
     
    For the sake of argument, if a lot of ailments were caused by too much or too little of some micro nutrient x then either

    - a diet with too much or too little x

    or

    - a gene that retained or expelled too much x

    would have the same result.

    #

    for example

    say NW Europe had a poor climate for neolithic crops leading to it becoming populated by dairy farmers and that led to lactose tolerance and milk drinking to get enough calories...

    however milk has very little iron so a gene that retained iron might be selected for in NW Europe as a "good" gene until a diet comes along providing sufficient iron and the good gene now retains too much iron and it becomes a bad gene.

    #

    extending that example - how many regions in neolithic Eurasia had a deficiency or surfeit in some micro nutrient or other where something similar may have occurred?

    I'd guess hundreds.

    tailored diet and tailored medicine may be two sides of the same coin

    #

    regarding IQ the many genes of small effect associated with intelligence may simply be the genes related to a healthy brain i.e. a healthy brain is intelligent

    (genes with large effect and a downside would be a special case)
  13. @hyperbola
    In medically related GWAS studies of "complex" diseases (e.g. Parkinsons), it is rather usual to find that large numbers of genetic variants can be related to the disease, but that many of them are neither necessary or sufficient. That is, inheritance of such a variant gene is statistically related to a cohort of people with the disease, but people with the disease do not necessarily have the genetic difference and those with the genetic variant do not necessarily have the disease.
    In short, the evidence is often that it is networks of large numbers of genetic changes that produce genetic susceptibility to specific genes. Conversely, single gene variants are often related to "rare" diseases (and usually considered to be about 1% of disease loading in a population).
    This means that all the "shortcuts" being taken by naive genetic screening are pretty useless. In the case of Parkinsons, the ca. 40 genes involved in the human population can only "explain" about 50% of inheritable effects, with the caveats noted above for individual genes.

    The general lesson is that we are dealing with very complex, highly integrated networks where it is the network rather than individual genes (factors) that is determinant. With sufficient complexity, individual effects are largely unknowable.

    "Intelligence" (whatever that is) may be a similar, partly unknowable complex network.

    As I understand it, it is generally agreed that what we call intelligence is based on many genes of small effect, most with more than one effect.

    Read More
    • Replies: @hyperbola
    Yep. Pretty much the same as complex diseases, where individual genes (really proteins) may have many effects. In such complex systems, "statistics" proving the involvement of a single factor are often not really very informative. I suspect that much of current genetic screening is too naive to be useful (how do we get to a useful level of networks?) and suspect that the same is probably true for "intelligence" factors.

    Maybe a "hopeful" factor in these days of "big data rules" is the realization that the number of factors and degree of complex integration means that we are all unique and "big data" will always have only limited success?
  14. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    The argument seems to be that single figure cannot possibly represent their myriad abilities. Quite so.

    Taken literally, that is as they say.
    But g, which I prefer to IQ (and I wonder why you mention so many fewer times than IQ) is a fabulous approximation (the best available), and it precisely represent some of those myriad cognitive abilities.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    wwebd said: g is the best approximation over large numbers of people faced with unchallenging but complicated cognitive tasks, but it is no more than that.
    Anecdotal evidence, which will be gathered by AIs over the next few decades, will of course demonstrate that any given individual, asked to rank a hundred individuals with which he or she is familiar, will most likely rank the person with the highest g as at the best at accomplishing 'cognitive tasks'.
    That being said, the AI gathered evidence will run several billion regression analyses which may have interesting results.
    And the version of g that the well-informed of the future will consider the best approximation will be much more loaded towards creativity - even in ranked cohorts of hundreds, and fantastically much more so in ranked cohorts of thousands and millions - than the current g is.
    Genes, prenatal health, a complete lack of iatrogenic and parental negative load, and local golden ages of Christian religious belief in the obvious megalopolis of secular and ideologically religious mystical beliefs will be where these predictions seem most accurate. Maybe.
    And, just as nobody cares anymore about the portrait of Dora Marr, nobody will feel anything but pity for the poor scientific geniuses (I am thinking more von Neumann than Kolmogorov here - check out their relative bios) who spent their lives scrambling to discover little tricks of number theory just moments or just days or months ahead of their rivals. (just kidding about von Neumann but wow that is one weird biography).
    On the other hand, maybe there are no golden ages ahead. There will still be lots of good art and lots of good food and nice people, one hopes, anyway. The eccentric mania for measurement will subside and maybe, as it (i.e., the world) rejoiced, in its way, in the very complex and uncharted cities of China of just three generations ago, the world will again rejoice, to a certain extent, in being unmapped.
    How about that.
  15. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Anonymous

    The argument seems to be that single figure cannot possibly represent their myriad abilities. Quite so.
     
    Taken literally, that is as they say.
    But g, which I prefer to IQ (and I wonder why you mention so many fewer times than IQ) is a fabulous approximation (the best available), and it precisely represent some of those myriad cognitive abilities.

    wwebd said: g is the best approximation over large numbers of people faced with unchallenging but complicated cognitive tasks, but it is no more than that.
    Anecdotal evidence, which will be gathered by AIs over the next few decades, will of course demonstrate that any given individual, asked to rank a hundred individuals with which he or she is familiar, will most likely rank the person with the highest g as at the best at accomplishing ‘cognitive tasks’.
    That being said, the AI gathered evidence will run several billion regression analyses which may have interesting results.
    And the version of g that the well-informed of the future will consider the best approximation will be much more loaded towards creativity – even in ranked cohorts of hundreds, and fantastically much more so in ranked cohorts of thousands and millions – than the current g is.
    Genes, prenatal health, a complete lack of iatrogenic and parental negative load, and local golden ages of Christian religious belief in the obvious megalopolis of secular and ideologically religious mystical beliefs will be where these predictions seem most accurate. Maybe.
    And, just as nobody cares anymore about the portrait of Dora Marr, nobody will feel anything but pity for the poor scientific geniuses (I am thinking more von Neumann than Kolmogorov here – check out their relative bios) who spent their lives scrambling to discover little tricks of number theory just moments or just days or months ahead of their rivals. (just kidding about von Neumann but wow that is one weird biography).
    On the other hand, maybe there are no golden ages ahead. There will still be lots of good art and lots of good food and nice people, one hopes, anyway. The eccentric mania for measurement will subside and maybe, as it (i.e., the world) rejoiced, in its way, in the very complex and uncharted cities of China of just three generations ago, the world will again rejoice, to a certain extent, in being unmapped.
    How about that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    A fine essay. If creativity is to be the best guide to real ability, then it will be interesting to see if measures of creativity differ very much from measures of high ability.
    Rex Jung is working on that issue, and tells me he is beginning to doubt that there is very much difference between them.

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/heave-half-brick-at-creativity
    , @utu

    "The eccentric mania for measurement will subside "
     
    Not really if it serves the power structure. There will be funding coming often from strange and shady sources. See Charles Murray.
  16. @anonymous
    wwebd said: g is the best approximation over large numbers of people faced with unchallenging but complicated cognitive tasks, but it is no more than that.
    Anecdotal evidence, which will be gathered by AIs over the next few decades, will of course demonstrate that any given individual, asked to rank a hundred individuals with which he or she is familiar, will most likely rank the person with the highest g as at the best at accomplishing 'cognitive tasks'.
    That being said, the AI gathered evidence will run several billion regression analyses which may have interesting results.
    And the version of g that the well-informed of the future will consider the best approximation will be much more loaded towards creativity - even in ranked cohorts of hundreds, and fantastically much more so in ranked cohorts of thousands and millions - than the current g is.
    Genes, prenatal health, a complete lack of iatrogenic and parental negative load, and local golden ages of Christian religious belief in the obvious megalopolis of secular and ideologically religious mystical beliefs will be where these predictions seem most accurate. Maybe.
    And, just as nobody cares anymore about the portrait of Dora Marr, nobody will feel anything but pity for the poor scientific geniuses (I am thinking more von Neumann than Kolmogorov here - check out their relative bios) who spent their lives scrambling to discover little tricks of number theory just moments or just days or months ahead of their rivals. (just kidding about von Neumann but wow that is one weird biography).
    On the other hand, maybe there are no golden ages ahead. There will still be lots of good art and lots of good food and nice people, one hopes, anyway. The eccentric mania for measurement will subside and maybe, as it (i.e., the world) rejoiced, in its way, in the very complex and uncharted cities of China of just three generations ago, the world will again rejoice, to a certain extent, in being unmapped.
    How about that.

    A fine essay. If creativity is to be the best guide to real ability, then it will be interesting to see if measures of creativity differ very much from measures of high ability.
    Rex Jung is working on that issue, and tells me he is beginning to doubt that there is very much difference between them.

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/heave-half-brick-at-creativity

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    Thanks for reading my comment. Based on anecdotal memories of people I have met, I have to say I think Rex Jung is probably right. Maybe 50 years (or maybe even much less - maybe 5 to 10 years) from now, it will be interesting to see whether the people with extreme and by-then easily measurable genetic luck vis a vis both intelligence and creativity will withdraw from the advantages offered them into an easy life, or will exploit those advantages (to become famous, or powerful, or just influential) at the price of exposing themselves to the hatred of the mob. My guess is that there will be a lot more team work then than there is now, and the teamwork will start at much younger ages, because the type of exhausting Mandarin academic winnowing that is now so popular almost everywhere will be well on its way to becoming a sad regretful collective memory. Also, I think that there is no chance, absent an unpredictable AI complete or near-complete takeover, that anytime in the next hundred years there will be any shortage of people whose intelligence and creativity, starting from an unremarkable level measured genetically, will have been spurred on to dizzying heights by extreme hardship, whether emotional, physical, or spiritual: and there will never be a secular time without spiritual hardship.
  17. dearieme says:

    “g is the best approximation over large numbers of people faced with unchallenging but complicated cognitive tasks, but it is no more than that.”

    Quite. And Newton’s Theory of Gravitation is just an approximation that has proved useful for understanding a wide range of apparently distinct phenomena, but it is no more than that.

    Read More
  18. hyperbola says:
    @James Thompson
    As I understand it, it is generally agreed that what we call intelligence is based on many genes of small effect, most with more than one effect.

    Yep. Pretty much the same as complex diseases, where individual genes (really proteins) may have many effects. In such complex systems, “statistics” proving the involvement of a single factor are often not really very informative. I suspect that much of current genetic screening is too naive to be useful (how do we get to a useful level of networks?) and suspect that the same is probably true for “intelligence” factors.

    Maybe a “hopeful” factor in these days of “big data rules” is the realization that the number of factors and degree of complex integration means that we are all unique and “big data” will always have only limited success?

    Read More
  19. FKA Max says:
    @FKA Max
    FYI:

    Only telling half the story, but at least IQ somewhat exists.

    Good News for the Older Mothers

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/03/well/family/good-news-for-the-older-mothers.html

    Alice Goisis, a research fellow at the London School of Economics and Political Science and the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research in Germany, and the lead author on the study, said, “the characteristics of older mothers have changed drastically over time.” In the older studies, she said, the women who were having children into their late 30s were more likely to be women who had many children, and possibly poorer, whereas in the later study, the millennium cohort study done in 2000-2, the older mothers were more likely to be educated, and socioeconomically better off. Twenty-six percent were giving birth to their first child at ages 35-39, as opposed to 11 percent in the 1958 study.
     

    “One question I am often asked is whether these results are suggesting that women should wait to have children so they will have smarter children, and the answer is that our results are not addressing that,” Dr. Goisis said.
     

    I just had another look at the NY Times article, specifically this sentence:

    “These women tend to be advantaged,” she said, and to take better care of themselves during pregnancy; they were less likely to smoke and more likely to breast-feed, compared to the younger mothers.

    Then I listened to this interview with Stuart Ritchie:

    Does Breastfeeding Increase IQ?
    More or Less: Behind the Stats

    A major 30-year study claims to show breastfed babies become more intelligent, higher earning adults. It’s not the first time we’ve heard that breastfeeding raises IQ levels; but is this evidence any more convincing? Ruth Alexander and Hannah Moore explore the details with Dr Stuart Ritchie from The University of Edinburgh.
    This programme was first broadcast on the BBC World Service.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02rzdl8

    Mr. Ritchie doubts that breastfeeding increases cognitive ability, because the parents in the Brazilian study were not specifically tested for IQ, and he believes this to be a significant confounder/weakness of the study.

    Since my other comments in this thread were mostly concerning the relationship between iodine deficiency and lowered cognitive functioning/ability, I checked whether there were any differences in the iodine content of breast milk and infant formula. Again, there is conflicting evidence on the subject:

    Formula as Good as Breastmilk for Iodine Levels (2013)

    The mean age of the mothers was about 33, 62% were white, and 56% had a graduate or professional degree.
    Overall, Leung and colleagues found similar concentrations of urinary iodine across groups, and all met iodine sufficiency standards
    [...]
    Leung warned, however, that the study was limited because several potential confounders — including iodine concentrations of maternal urine, breastmilk, maternal multivitamins, and infant formula — were not measured.

    Also, the study involved a Boston-area convenience sample, making it a homogeneous population and it may not be representative of the general U.S. population. More studies would be needed to confirm whether these findings are similar for infants nationwide, she said.

    Iodine content of infant formulas and iodine intake of premature babies: high risk of iodine deficiency. Ares et al. (1994) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7820714

    As part of a study of thyroid function in premature babies, the iodine content of their mothers’ breast milk, that of 32 formulas from different brands used in Spain, and that of 127 formulas used in other countries was determined. Breast milk contained more iodine–mean (SEM) 10 (1) microgram/dl–than most of the formulas, especially those for premature babies. Iodine intakes were therefore below the recommended daily amount (RDA) for newborns: babies of 27-30 weeks’ gestational age took 3.1 (1.1) micrograms/day at 5 days of age and 29.8 (2.7) micrograms by 2 months of age. This problem is not exclusive to Spanish premature babies as the iodine content of many of the formulas on sale in other countries was also inadequate. It is concluded that preterm infants who are formula fed are at high risk of iodine deficiency.

    Could breastfeeding actually increase the IQ of infants due to breast milk containing more iodine on average than infant formula, if the mothers themselves are not suffering from iodine deficiency?

    Read More
    • Replies: @FKA Max
    I forgot to give the link to the article:

    Formula as Good as Breastmilk for Iodine Levels

    http://www.medpagetoday.com/meetingcoverage/ata/42372

    Some more papers from Leung et al. on the topic:

    Iodine Nutrition in Pregnancy and Lactation Leung et al. (2011) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3266621/


    Adequate iodine nutrition during pregnancy and lactation is needed for thyroid hormone synthesis and normal neurodevelopment of the developing fetus in utero and in the breastfed infant. Iodine deficiency during pregnancy has been associated with impairments of infant neurologic and psychological outcomes.
    [...]
    Although the overall adult population in the United States remains iodine sufficient in recent national surveys, a subset of pregnant and lactating women may have inadequate dietary iodine intake. A public health approach has been undertaken to achieve recommended median urinary iodine concentrations during pregnancy and lactation.
    [...]
    Further studies are needed to assess the impact of environmental exposures to substances that may interfere with iodine use.
     
    Breastmilk Iodine Concentrations Following Acute Dietary Iodine Intake Leung et al. (2012) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3487113/

    Following ingestion of 600 μg KI, there is a measurable rise in breastmilk iodine concentrations, with peak levels occurring at 6 hours. These findings strongly suggest that breastmilk iodine concentrations should be interpreted in relation to recent iodine intake.
     
    ---------------------

    Iodine Supplementation in the Newborn Ghirri et al. (2014) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3916868/


    Iodine deficiency can be defined as the world’s greatest single cause of preventable brain damage. Prevention of fetal and neonatal hypothyroidism, caused by iodine deficiency, starts prior to conception and then continues during pregnancy and lactation ensuring an adequate iodine supplementation. Studies on healthy preterm and full-term newborns lead to believe that the iodine intake required to maintain a positive balance are 15 µg/kg/day in full-term newborns and 30 µg/kg/day, and up to 60 µg/kg/day, in preterm babies. In the term newborn, an adequate iodine intake is granted from the first days of age if he or she is formula fed or breastfed by an adequately supplemented mother
     
    , @alan2102
    "Could breastfeeding actually increase the IQ of infants due to breast milk containing more iodine on average than infant formula"

    Absolute quantity of iodine itself is important. But still more important is organified iodine, specifically iodothyronines -- T2, T3, T4. The heavy impact on brain development (and consequently IQ) depends on iodinated thyronines, not the iodide ion /per se/. Hypothyroidism, broadly defined, (i.e. insufficient organification of iodine), is the problem as much as absolute iodine supply. Though of course iodine in absolute terms must be sufficient as well. Breast milk is a good source of iodothyronines, IF the mother is organifying iodine adequately and IF the mother is adequately supplied with iodine.

    , @anon

    Could breastfeeding actually increase the IQ of infants due to breast milk containing more iodine on average than infant formula, if the mothers themselves are not suffering from iodine deficiency?
     
    Since first reading up on this stuff I've thought the obvious place to put brain boosting adaptations is breast milk.

    In which case the answer to your question might be it depends i.e. there may be genes for optimizing the iodine in breast milk and not all women may have them (or all of them).

    If correct this might explain conflicting studies.

    If correct then
    - if your family is smart then breast feed 100%
    - if your family is dumb then maybe get formula (probably Japanese).
  20. FKA Max says:
    @FKA Max
    I just had another look at the NY Times article, specifically this sentence:

    “These women tend to be advantaged,” she said, and to take better care of themselves during pregnancy; they were less likely to smoke and more likely to breast-feed, compared to the younger mothers.
     
    Then I listened to this interview with Stuart Ritchie:

    Does Breastfeeding Increase IQ?
    More or Less: Behind the Stats

    A major 30-year study claims to show breastfed babies become more intelligent, higher earning adults. It's not the first time we've heard that breastfeeding raises IQ levels; but is this evidence any more convincing? Ruth Alexander and Hannah Moore explore the details with Dr Stuart Ritchie from The University of Edinburgh.
    This programme was first broadcast on the BBC World Service.
     

    - http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02rzdl8

    Mr. Ritchie doubts that breastfeeding increases cognitive ability, because the parents in the Brazilian study were not specifically tested for IQ, and he believes this to be a significant confounder/weakness of the study.

    Since my other comments in this thread were mostly concerning the relationship between iodine deficiency and lowered cognitive functioning/ability, I checked whether there were any differences in the iodine content of breast milk and infant formula. Again, there is conflicting evidence on the subject:

    Formula as Good as Breastmilk for Iodine Levels (2013)


    The mean age of the mothers was about 33, 62% were white, and 56% had a graduate or professional degree.
    Overall, Leung and colleagues found similar concentrations of urinary iodine across groups, and all met iodine sufficiency standards
    [...]
    Leung warned, however, that the study was limited because several potential confounders -- including iodine concentrations of maternal urine, breastmilk, maternal multivitamins, and infant formula -- were not measured.

    Also, the study involved a Boston-area convenience sample, making it a homogeneous population and it may not be representative of the general U.S. population. More studies would be needed to confirm whether these findings are similar for infants nationwide, she said.
     

    Iodine content of infant formulas and iodine intake of premature babies: high risk of iodine deficiency. Ares et al. (1994) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7820714

    As part of a study of thyroid function in premature babies, the iodine content of their mothers' breast milk, that of 32 formulas from different brands used in Spain, and that of 127 formulas used in other countries was determined. Breast milk contained more iodine--mean (SEM) 10 (1) microgram/dl--than most of the formulas, especially those for premature babies. Iodine intakes were therefore below the recommended daily amount (RDA) for newborns: babies of 27-30 weeks' gestational age took 3.1 (1.1) micrograms/day at 5 days of age and 29.8 (2.7) micrograms by 2 months of age. This problem is not exclusive to Spanish premature babies as the iodine content of many of the formulas on sale in other countries was also inadequate. It is concluded that preterm infants who are formula fed are at high risk of iodine deficiency.
     
    Could breastfeeding actually increase the IQ of infants due to breast milk containing more iodine on average than infant formula, if the mothers themselves are not suffering from iodine deficiency?

    I forgot to give the link to the article:

    Formula as Good as Breastmilk for Iodine Levels

    http://www.medpagetoday.com/meetingcoverage/ata/42372

    Some more papers from Leung et al. on the topic:

    Iodine Nutrition in Pregnancy and Lactation Leung et al. (2011) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3266621/

    Adequate iodine nutrition during pregnancy and lactation is needed for thyroid hormone synthesis and normal neurodevelopment of the developing fetus in utero and in the breastfed infant. Iodine deficiency during pregnancy has been associated with impairments of infant neurologic and psychological outcomes.
    [...]
    Although the overall adult population in the United States remains iodine sufficient in recent national surveys, a subset of pregnant and lactating women may have inadequate dietary iodine intake. A public health approach has been undertaken to achieve recommended median urinary iodine concentrations during pregnancy and lactation.
    [...]
    Further studies are needed to assess the impact of environmental exposures to substances that may interfere with iodine use.

    Breastmilk Iodine Concentrations Following Acute Dietary Iodine Intake Leung et al. (2012) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3487113/

    Following ingestion of 600 μg KI, there is a measurable rise in breastmilk iodine concentrations, with peak levels occurring at 6 hours. These findings strongly suggest that breastmilk iodine concentrations should be interpreted in relation to recent iodine intake.

    ———————

    Iodine Supplementation in the Newborn Ghirri et al. (2014) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3916868/

    Iodine deficiency can be defined as the world’s greatest single cause of preventable brain damage. Prevention of fetal and neonatal hypothyroidism, caused by iodine deficiency, starts prior to conception and then continues during pregnancy and lactation ensuring an adequate iodine supplementation. Studies on healthy preterm and full-term newborns lead to believe that the iodine intake required to maintain a positive balance are 15 µg/kg/day in full-term newborns and 30 µg/kg/day, and up to 60 µg/kg/day, in preterm babies. In the term newborn, an adequate iodine intake is granted from the first days of age if he or she is formula fed or breastfed by an adequately supplemented mother

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    Don't know about iodine insufficiency, but these reports are interesting. However, evidence for breast feeding boosting IQ is weak, in my view.
    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/breast-feeding-intelligence-and
  21. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @James Thompson
    A fine essay. If creativity is to be the best guide to real ability, then it will be interesting to see if measures of creativity differ very much from measures of high ability.
    Rex Jung is working on that issue, and tells me he is beginning to doubt that there is very much difference between them.

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/heave-half-brick-at-creativity

    Thanks for reading my comment. Based on anecdotal memories of people I have met, I have to say I think Rex Jung is probably right. Maybe 50 years (or maybe even much less – maybe 5 to 10 years) from now, it will be interesting to see whether the people with extreme and by-then easily measurable genetic luck vis a vis both intelligence and creativity will withdraw from the advantages offered them into an easy life, or will exploit those advantages (to become famous, or powerful, or just influential) at the price of exposing themselves to the hatred of the mob. My guess is that there will be a lot more team work then than there is now, and the teamwork will start at much younger ages, because the type of exhausting Mandarin academic winnowing that is now so popular almost everywhere will be well on its way to becoming a sad regretful collective memory. Also, I think that there is no chance, absent an unpredictable AI complete or near-complete takeover, that anytime in the next hundred years there will be any shortage of people whose intelligence and creativity, starting from an unremarkable level measured genetically, will have been spurred on to dizzying heights by extreme hardship, whether emotional, physical, or spiritual: and there will never be a secular time without spiritual hardship.

    Read More
  22. Harold says:
    @Amir Sariaslan
    I tend to, rather unsurprisingly, agree with JayMan on this. There is substantial non-random selection into deprived neighbourhoods, where the lead exposure is presumably higher. One would need to account for such effects by using adequate research designs that can handle unmeasured confounders.

    As a New Zealander, albeit not very familiar with Dunedin, my thoughts are that Dunedin doesn’t have deprived neighbourhoods with more lead exposure. Take a look at a satellite view of Dunedin.

    Maybe we need better research design, but for this matter, I would bet it wouldn’t change anything.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    The fact that Dunedin does not have deprived neighbourhoods with more lead exposure is a strength of this study, since it avoids SES confounding
  23. Iodine or whatever “cause” lower IQ

    Only way to prove it is

    Sons consistently scoring lower in IQ tests than their fathers or new generations scoring lower than their fathers.

    But I think there is a social confounding here.

    If there is a social confounding so it’s likely that have a genetic confounding too.

    Also there is a inductive reasoning confounding (if I remember what it mean) with deductive reasoning…

    By now was found a correlation. Period.

    Seems more difficult to prove causality.

    We also can find

    Smarter and extra-verted people score higher in IQ tests cause they eat more fruits…

    Low quality diet reduce IQ..

    Read More
  24. @Harold
    As a New Zealander, albeit not very familiar with Dunedin, my thoughts are that Dunedin doesn’t have deprived neighbourhoods with more lead exposure. Take a look at a satellite view of Dunedin.

    Maybe we need better research design, but for this matter, I would bet it wouldn’t change anything.

    The fact that Dunedin does not have deprived neighbourhoods with more lead exposure is a strength of this study, since it avoids SES confounding

    Read More
  25. @FKA Max
    I forgot to give the link to the article:

    Formula as Good as Breastmilk for Iodine Levels

    http://www.medpagetoday.com/meetingcoverage/ata/42372

    Some more papers from Leung et al. on the topic:

    Iodine Nutrition in Pregnancy and Lactation Leung et al. (2011) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3266621/


    Adequate iodine nutrition during pregnancy and lactation is needed for thyroid hormone synthesis and normal neurodevelopment of the developing fetus in utero and in the breastfed infant. Iodine deficiency during pregnancy has been associated with impairments of infant neurologic and psychological outcomes.
    [...]
    Although the overall adult population in the United States remains iodine sufficient in recent national surveys, a subset of pregnant and lactating women may have inadequate dietary iodine intake. A public health approach has been undertaken to achieve recommended median urinary iodine concentrations during pregnancy and lactation.
    [...]
    Further studies are needed to assess the impact of environmental exposures to substances that may interfere with iodine use.
     
    Breastmilk Iodine Concentrations Following Acute Dietary Iodine Intake Leung et al. (2012) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3487113/

    Following ingestion of 600 μg KI, there is a measurable rise in breastmilk iodine concentrations, with peak levels occurring at 6 hours. These findings strongly suggest that breastmilk iodine concentrations should be interpreted in relation to recent iodine intake.
     
    ---------------------

    Iodine Supplementation in the Newborn Ghirri et al. (2014) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3916868/


    Iodine deficiency can be defined as the world’s greatest single cause of preventable brain damage. Prevention of fetal and neonatal hypothyroidism, caused by iodine deficiency, starts prior to conception and then continues during pregnancy and lactation ensuring an adequate iodine supplementation. Studies on healthy preterm and full-term newborns lead to believe that the iodine intake required to maintain a positive balance are 15 µg/kg/day in full-term newborns and 30 µg/kg/day, and up to 60 µg/kg/day, in preterm babies. In the term newborn, an adequate iodine intake is granted from the first days of age if he or she is formula fed or breastfed by an adequately supplemented mother
     

    Don’t know about iodine insufficiency, but these reports are interesting. However, evidence for breast feeding boosting IQ is weak, in my view.

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/breast-feeding-intelligence-and

    Read More
    • Replies: @FKA Max
    Thank you, Mr. Thompson.

    As Angela Leung pointed out:


    Although the overall adult population in the United States remains iodine sufficient in recent national surveys, a subset of pregnant and lactating women may have inadequate dietary iodine intake
     
    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/iq-does-not-exist-lead-poisoning-aside/#comment-1825370

    Until recently, about 25% of the iodine in the diet was from wheat, because iodine was used in the processing of flour. Now, however, a lot of flour in the U.S. is processed with a chemical cousin of iodine, bromide (potassium bromate), which helps makes flour doughier, rise higher, and gives the loaf a better appearance. But bromide is a double-edged sword: not only has it replaced iodine, it may block the activity of iodine. That’s also true for two more of iodine’s chemical cousins – chlorine and fluoride, both of which are common in drinking water. [...] And people are using less and less iodized table salt at home, because of the misguided medical advice (except in those with heart failure) to avoid salt.
     
    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/what-do-iq-researchers-really-think-about-the-flynn-effect/#comment-1706913

    Taking into account these recent changes in our Western dietary habits/ideology and food processing, one could even argue that breastfeeding compared to feeding one's baby sufficiently-iodinized infant formula could actually increase the risk of depressing one's baby's IQ, if, as Angela Leung warned, an increasing number of breast-feeding Western mothers are (unknowingly) iodine deficient.

    It is, indeed, a complex matter.

    I personally suspect that this return of higher rates of iodine deficiency among Westerners could be another contributor to the ``Woodley Effect,'' besides the boom in myopia patients, etc.:


    The myopic people have greater reaction time than emmetropic people even though when their refractive error is corrected. This adds refractive error as a new member in the row of factors that affects the VRT.
     
    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-woodley-effect/#comment-1765219

    But it was obvious that genes could not be the whole story. One of the clearest signs came from a 1969 study of Inuit people on the northern tip of Alaska whose lifestyle was changing2. Of adults who had grown up in isolated communities, only 2 of 131 had myopic eyes. But more than half of their children and grandchildren had the condition. Genetic changes happen too slowly to explain this rapid change — or the soaring rates in myopia that have since been documented all over the world (see ‘The march of myopia’).
     
    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-woodley-effect/#comment-1768329

    Maybe, after all, lead poisoning is only one of the lesser problems in the grand scheme of things?

    , @Wizard of Oz
    I was about to suggest to CanSpeccy that we ask you to say just what IQ tests are useful forand how useful they are with any necessary discriminations between different highly correlated measures of g. And I do.... But then a different question occurred to me also.

    Are there commonly used tests of (particularly) verbal abilities which are highly correlated with g and others which are not? If so what would the justification be for using the less g correlated? Has any research been done to show that some occupations require e.g. vast specialised or non-specialised vocabularies that csn be acquired by sheer hard work?
  26. FKA Max says:
    @James Thompson
    Don't know about iodine insufficiency, but these reports are interesting. However, evidence for breast feeding boosting IQ is weak, in my view.
    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/breast-feeding-intelligence-and

    Thank you, Mr. Thompson.

    As Angela Leung pointed out:

    Although the overall adult population in the United States remains iodine sufficient in recent national surveys, a subset of pregnant and lactating women may have inadequate dietary iodine intake

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/iq-does-not-exist-lead-poisoning-aside/#comment-1825370

    Until recently, about 25% of the iodine in the diet was from wheat, because iodine was used in the processing of flour. Now, however, a lot of flour in the U.S. is processed with a chemical cousin of iodine, bromide (potassium bromate), which helps makes flour doughier, rise higher, and gives the loaf a better appearance. But bromide is a double-edged sword: not only has it replaced iodine, it may block the activity of iodine. That’s also true for two more of iodine’s chemical cousins – chlorine and fluoride, both of which are common in drinking water. [...] And people are using less and less iodized table salt at home, because of the misguided medical advice (except in those with heart failure) to avoid salt.

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/what-do-iq-researchers-really-think-about-the-flynn-effect/#comment-1706913

    Taking into account these recent changes in our Western dietary habits/ideology and food processing, one could even argue that breastfeeding compared to feeding one’s baby sufficiently-iodinized infant formula could actually increase the risk of depressing one’s baby’s IQ, if, as Angela Leung warned, an increasing number of breast-feeding Western mothers are (unknowingly) iodine deficient.

    It is, indeed, a complex matter.

    I personally suspect that this return of higher rates of iodine deficiency among Westerners could be another contributor to the “Woodley Effect,” besides the boom in myopia patients, etc.:

    The myopic people have greater reaction time than emmetropic people even though when their refractive error is corrected. This adds refractive error as a new member in the row of factors that affects the VRT.

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-woodley-effect/#comment-1765219

    But it was obvious that genes could not be the whole story. One of the clearest signs came from a 1969 study of Inuit people on the northern tip of Alaska whose lifestyle was changing2. Of adults who had grown up in isolated communities, only 2 of 131 had myopic eyes. But more than half of their children and grandchildren had the condition. Genetic changes happen too slowly to explain this rapid change — or the soaring rates in myopia that have since been documented all over the world (see ‘The march of myopia’).

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-woodley-effect/#comment-1768329

    Maybe, after all, lead poisoning is only one of the lesser problems in the grand scheme of things?

    Read More
    • Replies: @FKA Max
    Some good news for people who have been exposed to lead in their life. Iodine seems to mitigate the effects of lead poisoning:

    Effects of lead on thyroid functions in lead-exposed workers Pekcici et al. (2010) http://link.springer.com/article/10.2478/s11536-009-0092-8


    These results suggest that high levels of lead in the blood may affect thyroid physiology. Clinicians should be aware of the potential hazardous effects of lead on the thyroid, especially in patients who have been occupationally exposed to lead.
     
    Lead poisoning secondary to hyperthyroidism: report of two cases. Klein et al. (1998) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9506864

    With long-term exposure to lead, lead accumulates in bone, where it is stored for years. These quiescent lead stores are mobilised when increased bone turnover occurs, and latent lead toxicity may then become symptomatic. Although Graves' disease is a common cause of increased bone turnover, to date hyperthyroidism has been implicated in lead poisoning only twice. We describe herein two cases of hyperthyroidism, one caused by toxic multinodular thyroid enlargement, the second by Graves' disease, leading to lead poisoning. Treatment of hyperthyroidism with radioactive iodine cured both hyperthyroidism and lead poisoning and no chelating agent therapy was necessary. Lead poisoning is an important environmental health problem, and physicians must be aware of the endocrine disorders such as hyperthyroidism and hyperparathyroidism that increase bone turnover, favouring lead mobilisation. Atypical symptoms should draw the physician's attention to the possibility of lead poisoning, particularly in workers with occupational exposure to lead and in areas where lead poisoning is endemic.
     
    , @anon

    But bromide is a double-edged sword: not only has it replaced iodine, it may block the activity of iodine. That’s also true for two more of iodine’s chemical cousins – chlorine and fluoride, both of which are common in drinking water.
     
    Yes, there's dozens of examples of this happening e.g. the switch away from iodine as an antiseptic in the dairy industry.

    (Also some places (like Argentina) have a lot of naturally flouridated water.)

    (Pure guess) this may even be the connection to lead - lead iodide is a toxin so maybe the lead is reacting with iodine in the body both reducing the iodine available for brain growth and creating a toxin?
  27. FKA Max says:
    @FKA Max
    Thank you, Mr. Thompson.

    As Angela Leung pointed out:


    Although the overall adult population in the United States remains iodine sufficient in recent national surveys, a subset of pregnant and lactating women may have inadequate dietary iodine intake
     
    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/iq-does-not-exist-lead-poisoning-aside/#comment-1825370

    Until recently, about 25% of the iodine in the diet was from wheat, because iodine was used in the processing of flour. Now, however, a lot of flour in the U.S. is processed with a chemical cousin of iodine, bromide (potassium bromate), which helps makes flour doughier, rise higher, and gives the loaf a better appearance. But bromide is a double-edged sword: not only has it replaced iodine, it may block the activity of iodine. That’s also true for two more of iodine’s chemical cousins – chlorine and fluoride, both of which are common in drinking water. [...] And people are using less and less iodized table salt at home, because of the misguided medical advice (except in those with heart failure) to avoid salt.
     
    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/what-do-iq-researchers-really-think-about-the-flynn-effect/#comment-1706913

    Taking into account these recent changes in our Western dietary habits/ideology and food processing, one could even argue that breastfeeding compared to feeding one's baby sufficiently-iodinized infant formula could actually increase the risk of depressing one's baby's IQ, if, as Angela Leung warned, an increasing number of breast-feeding Western mothers are (unknowingly) iodine deficient.

    It is, indeed, a complex matter.

    I personally suspect that this return of higher rates of iodine deficiency among Westerners could be another contributor to the ``Woodley Effect,'' besides the boom in myopia patients, etc.:


    The myopic people have greater reaction time than emmetropic people even though when their refractive error is corrected. This adds refractive error as a new member in the row of factors that affects the VRT.
     
    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-woodley-effect/#comment-1765219

    But it was obvious that genes could not be the whole story. One of the clearest signs came from a 1969 study of Inuit people on the northern tip of Alaska whose lifestyle was changing2. Of adults who had grown up in isolated communities, only 2 of 131 had myopic eyes. But more than half of their children and grandchildren had the condition. Genetic changes happen too slowly to explain this rapid change — or the soaring rates in myopia that have since been documented all over the world (see ‘The march of myopia’).
     
    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-woodley-effect/#comment-1768329

    Maybe, after all, lead poisoning is only one of the lesser problems in the grand scheme of things?

    Some good news for people who have been exposed to lead in their life. Iodine seems to mitigate the effects of lead poisoning:

    Effects of lead on thyroid functions in lead-exposed workers Pekcici et al. (2010) http://link.springer.com/article/10.2478/s11536-009-0092-8

    These results suggest that high levels of lead in the blood may affect thyroid physiology. Clinicians should be aware of the potential hazardous effects of lead on the thyroid, especially in patients who have been occupationally exposed to lead.

    Lead poisoning secondary to hyperthyroidism: report of two cases. Klein et al. (1998) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9506864

    With long-term exposure to lead, lead accumulates in bone, where it is stored for years. These quiescent lead stores are mobilised when increased bone turnover occurs, and latent lead toxicity may then become symptomatic. Although Graves’ disease is a common cause of increased bone turnover, to date hyperthyroidism has been implicated in lead poisoning only twice. We describe herein two cases of hyperthyroidism, one caused by toxic multinodular thyroid enlargement, the second by Graves’ disease, leading to lead poisoning. Treatment of hyperthyroidism with radioactive iodine cured both hyperthyroidism and lead poisoning and no chelating agent therapy was necessary. Lead poisoning is an important environmental health problem, and physicians must be aware of the endocrine disorders such as hyperthyroidism and hyperparathyroidism that increase bone turnover, favouring lead mobilisation. Atypical symptoms should draw the physician’s attention to the possibility of lead poisoning, particularly in workers with occupational exposure to lead and in areas where lead poisoning is endemic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FKA Max
    Important qualification:

    Balance is important in all aspects of life, especially nutrition. While iodine deficiency plagues much of the world, consuming too much iodine can also be a problem.
    [...]
    While too much iodine can induce hyperthyroidism, iodine can, oddly enough, also be the solution.

    Iodine as the Solution to Hyperthyroidism


    Iodine can be used to slow thyroid hormone release. Potassium iodide, Lugol’s solution, or, my personal preference, nascent iodine, can be used to initiate this effect. Applied in this way, iodine can halt complications like those of a Thyroid Storm, where the thyroid overproduces and over releases thyroid hormones leading to serious and potentially fatal effects.

    In some cases, small amounts of Iodine-131 (a radioactive iodine) will be applied to slow thyroid hormone production. Studies of individuals exposed to iodine-131 radiation have shown consistent development of hypothyroidism, a condition of reduced thyroid hormone output. [3] In medical applications, only the smallest amount is used to achieve the necessary result.
     
    - http://www.globalhealingcenter.com/natural-health/iodine-and-hyperthyroidism/

    Graves Remission with Iodine Case Report by Jeffrey Dach MD

    http://jeffreydachmd.com/2014/04/graves-remission-iodine-case-report-jeffrey-dach-md/
  28. FKA Max says:
    @FKA Max
    Some good news for people who have been exposed to lead in their life. Iodine seems to mitigate the effects of lead poisoning:

    Effects of lead on thyroid functions in lead-exposed workers Pekcici et al. (2010) http://link.springer.com/article/10.2478/s11536-009-0092-8


    These results suggest that high levels of lead in the blood may affect thyroid physiology. Clinicians should be aware of the potential hazardous effects of lead on the thyroid, especially in patients who have been occupationally exposed to lead.
     
    Lead poisoning secondary to hyperthyroidism: report of two cases. Klein et al. (1998) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9506864

    With long-term exposure to lead, lead accumulates in bone, where it is stored for years. These quiescent lead stores are mobilised when increased bone turnover occurs, and latent lead toxicity may then become symptomatic. Although Graves' disease is a common cause of increased bone turnover, to date hyperthyroidism has been implicated in lead poisoning only twice. We describe herein two cases of hyperthyroidism, one caused by toxic multinodular thyroid enlargement, the second by Graves' disease, leading to lead poisoning. Treatment of hyperthyroidism with radioactive iodine cured both hyperthyroidism and lead poisoning and no chelating agent therapy was necessary. Lead poisoning is an important environmental health problem, and physicians must be aware of the endocrine disorders such as hyperthyroidism and hyperparathyroidism that increase bone turnover, favouring lead mobilisation. Atypical symptoms should draw the physician's attention to the possibility of lead poisoning, particularly in workers with occupational exposure to lead and in areas where lead poisoning is endemic.
     

    Important qualification:

    Balance is important in all aspects of life, especially nutrition. While iodine deficiency plagues much of the world, consuming too much iodine can also be a problem.
    [...]
    While too much iodine can induce hyperthyroidism, iodine can, oddly enough, also be the solution.

    Iodine as the Solution to Hyperthyroidism

    Iodine can be used to slow thyroid hormone release. Potassium iodide, Lugol’s solution, or, my personal preference, nascent iodine, can be used to initiate this effect. Applied in this way, iodine can halt complications like those of a Thyroid Storm, where the thyroid overproduces and over releases thyroid hormones leading to serious and potentially fatal effects.

    In some cases, small amounts of Iodine-131 (a radioactive iodine) will be applied to slow thyroid hormone production. Studies of individuals exposed to iodine-131 radiation have shown consistent development of hypothyroidism, a condition of reduced thyroid hormone output. [3] In medical applications, only the smallest amount is used to achieve the necessary result.

    http://www.globalhealingcenter.com/natural-health/iodine-and-hyperthyroidism/

    Graves Remission with Iodine Case Report by Jeffrey Dach MD

    http://jeffreydachmd.com/2014/04/graves-remission-iodine-case-report-jeffrey-dach-md/

    Read More
  29. There must be a lot of lead in Africa, and I am not referring to the copper-jacketed variety.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FKA Max
    How Lead Poisoning Is Devastating Countries Around the World

    Recent research published in the Mexican health journal Salud Publica, or Public Health, found that lead contamination in the country has reduced average IQ by five points across the country's population.[...] "Think of an entire society that’s impaired, an entire village that's having trouble learning how to read, how to process numbers," says Caravanos. "Your Einsteins just won’t be there."
     
    - http://time.com/4227906/lead-poisoning-global-impact/

    Blood Lead Levels in Mexico and Pediatric Burden of Disease Implications Caravanos et al. (2014) http://pureearth.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Mexico-blood-lead.pdf


    Our results indicate that more than 15% of the population will experience a decrement of more than 5 IQ points from lead exposure.
     
  30. FKA Max says:
    @Peripatetic commenter
    There must be a lot of lead in Africa, and I am not referring to the copper-jacketed variety.

    How Lead Poisoning Is Devastating Countries Around the World

    Recent research published in the Mexican health journal Salud Publica, or Public Health, found that lead contamination in the country has reduced average IQ by five points across the country’s population.[...] “Think of an entire society that’s impaired, an entire village that’s having trouble learning how to read, how to process numbers,” says Caravanos. “Your Einsteins just won’t be there.”

    http://time.com/4227906/lead-poisoning-global-impact/

    Blood Lead Levels in Mexico and Pediatric Burden of Disease Implications Caravanos et al. (2014) http://pureearth.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Mexico-blood-lead.pdf

    Our results indicate that more than 15% of the population will experience a decrement of more than 5 IQ points from lead exposure.

    Read More
  31. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    Who doubts the existence of intelligence? …. Exactly. No one.

    What any rational observer of humanity is bound to reject is the notion that a unidimensional scale, IQ for example, provides a valid measure of ability in all intellectual domains. At best, such a test can provide a mean ranking in several domains.

    Moreover, the idea that a comprehensive assessment of individual genius is possible with a test based on a few numerical, verbal, and shape-matching puzzles reveals an amazing blindness to the range of human aptitude — a conclusion that is not refuted by the existence of factors, either genetic or environmental, that have a general effect on mental function.

    Read More
  32. alan2102 says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    There are still many people who believe that intelligence does not exist or that it cannot be measured, particularly if the summary result is given as a single figure.
     
    These are two very different propositions, you know. It seems to me that anyone with IQ above 60 should understand that 'intelligence', by almost any definition, can not indeed be measured by a single number.

    “It seems to me that anyone with IQ above 60 should understand that ‘intelligence’, by almost any definition, can not indeed be measured by a single number.”

    Ha. Yes. But the psychometricians are desperate to claim otherwise; emotionally and intellectually, they are totally invested in that idea; “all in”, so to say.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Z Blog
    This is a pretty good example of what psychology calls projection. This form of "argument" is common with the creationists and ID'ers.
    , @AP

    “It seems to me that anyone with IQ above 60 should understand that ‘intelligence’, by almost any definition, can not indeed be measured by a single number.”

    Ha. Yes. But the psychometricians are desperate to claim otherwise;
     
    No they aren't, and they don't.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    "Anyone with an IQ above [not 60 but let's say an alert and educated 110] should understand that" Mao Cheng Ji may be engaged in teasing irony. See #82
  33. alan2102 says:
    @FKA Max
    I just had another look at the NY Times article, specifically this sentence:

    “These women tend to be advantaged,” she said, and to take better care of themselves during pregnancy; they were less likely to smoke and more likely to breast-feed, compared to the younger mothers.
     
    Then I listened to this interview with Stuart Ritchie:

    Does Breastfeeding Increase IQ?
    More or Less: Behind the Stats

    A major 30-year study claims to show breastfed babies become more intelligent, higher earning adults. It's not the first time we've heard that breastfeeding raises IQ levels; but is this evidence any more convincing? Ruth Alexander and Hannah Moore explore the details with Dr Stuart Ritchie from The University of Edinburgh.
    This programme was first broadcast on the BBC World Service.
     

    - http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02rzdl8

    Mr. Ritchie doubts that breastfeeding increases cognitive ability, because the parents in the Brazilian study were not specifically tested for IQ, and he believes this to be a significant confounder/weakness of the study.

    Since my other comments in this thread were mostly concerning the relationship between iodine deficiency and lowered cognitive functioning/ability, I checked whether there were any differences in the iodine content of breast milk and infant formula. Again, there is conflicting evidence on the subject:

    Formula as Good as Breastmilk for Iodine Levels (2013)


    The mean age of the mothers was about 33, 62% were white, and 56% had a graduate or professional degree.
    Overall, Leung and colleagues found similar concentrations of urinary iodine across groups, and all met iodine sufficiency standards
    [...]
    Leung warned, however, that the study was limited because several potential confounders -- including iodine concentrations of maternal urine, breastmilk, maternal multivitamins, and infant formula -- were not measured.

    Also, the study involved a Boston-area convenience sample, making it a homogeneous population and it may not be representative of the general U.S. population. More studies would be needed to confirm whether these findings are similar for infants nationwide, she said.
     

    Iodine content of infant formulas and iodine intake of premature babies: high risk of iodine deficiency. Ares et al. (1994) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7820714

    As part of a study of thyroid function in premature babies, the iodine content of their mothers' breast milk, that of 32 formulas from different brands used in Spain, and that of 127 formulas used in other countries was determined. Breast milk contained more iodine--mean (SEM) 10 (1) microgram/dl--than most of the formulas, especially those for premature babies. Iodine intakes were therefore below the recommended daily amount (RDA) for newborns: babies of 27-30 weeks' gestational age took 3.1 (1.1) micrograms/day at 5 days of age and 29.8 (2.7) micrograms by 2 months of age. This problem is not exclusive to Spanish premature babies as the iodine content of many of the formulas on sale in other countries was also inadequate. It is concluded that preterm infants who are formula fed are at high risk of iodine deficiency.
     
    Could breastfeeding actually increase the IQ of infants due to breast milk containing more iodine on average than infant formula, if the mothers themselves are not suffering from iodine deficiency?

    “Could breastfeeding actually increase the IQ of infants due to breast milk containing more iodine on average than infant formula”

    Absolute quantity of iodine itself is important. But still more important is organified iodine, specifically iodothyronines — T2, T3, T4. The heavy impact on brain development (and consequently IQ) depends on iodinated thyronines, not the iodide ion /per se/. Hypothyroidism, broadly defined, (i.e. insufficient organification of iodine), is the problem as much as absolute iodine supply. Though of course iodine in absolute terms must be sufficient as well. Breast milk is a good source of iodothyronines, IF the mother is organifying iodine adequately and IF the mother is adequately supplied with iodine.

    Read More
  34. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @FKA Max
    I just watched Emil Kirkegaard's recent Youtube interview, in which lead poisoning was one of the topics discussed in regards to IQ. Mr. Kirkegaard stated, that there had not been any ``environmental'' ways to boost IQ found yet, only ``environmental'' causes which depressed IQ, e.g., he gave the example of lead poisoning; but as I understand it, iodine has been found and confirmed to be a quite significant ``environmental'' factor in boosting IQ, and it is also relatively easy and cost-effective to do so. Am I wrong? Is the iodine-IQ story/research just ``fake (feel good) news?'':

    According to public health experts, iodisation of salt may be the world’s simplest and most cost-effective measure available to improve health, only costing US$0.05 per person per year.
     
    - http://www.unz.com/isteve/height-changes-from-1914-2014/#comment-1506435

    Iodine Deficiency – An Old Epidemic Is Back
    The mineral is much more important tha[n] most realize
    [...]
    Scientists James Feyrer, Dimitra Politi, and David N. Weil have found in the U.S. that the proliferation of iodized salt increased IQ by 15 points in some areas.
     
    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/what-do-iq-researchers-really-think-about-the-flynn-effect/#comment-1706913

    Lead poisoning is briefly discussed from about 10 minutes into the video:

    Emil OW Kirkegaard: IQ And The Future Of Eugenics

    https://youtu.be/nT4GMu_bFOE?t=9m57s

    Mr. Kirkegaard stated, that there had not been any “environmental” ways to boost IQ found yet, only “environmental” causes which depressed IQ, e.g., he gave the example of lead poisoning; but as I understand it, iodine has been found and confirmed to be a quite significant “environmental” factor in boosting IQ, and it is also relatively easy and cost-effective to do so. Am I wrong?

    He may have meant that iodine doesn’t increase IQ above its natural (i.e. genetic) potential.

    Iodine deficiency dramatically lowers IQ and adding iodine i.e. removing the deficiency, lets it reach its natural limit but (if genetic IQ is true) it doesn’t increase IQ above its genetic limit – only gene frequency can do that.

    Hence all the current programs to reduce iodine deficiency in Africa and the earlier programs in the western countries starting from the 1920s to add iodine to table salt (or to cattle feed in the milk drinking anglo countries).

    http://www.sightandlife.org/fileadmin/data/Magazine/2013/27_3_2013/iodine_nutrition_in_africa.pdf

    The iodine thing, along with the increased consumption of fish in the developing world, is a possible candidate for the Flynn effect.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Thanks to adding to my battery of explanations for the Flynn effect. Mine include test sophistication, radio programs which required focus and attention (not least the comedies), antibiotics, anti-inflammatories etc
  35. dearieme says:

    The comment flood seems to have ebbed, so let me just compliment you on your headline, doc. Fine stuff.

    Read More
  36. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @hyperbola
    In medically related GWAS studies of "complex" diseases (e.g. Parkinsons), it is rather usual to find that large numbers of genetic variants can be related to the disease, but that many of them are neither necessary or sufficient. That is, inheritance of such a variant gene is statistically related to a cohort of people with the disease, but people with the disease do not necessarily have the genetic difference and those with the genetic variant do not necessarily have the disease.
    In short, the evidence is often that it is networks of large numbers of genetic changes that produce genetic susceptibility to specific genes. Conversely, single gene variants are often related to "rare" diseases (and usually considered to be about 1% of disease loading in a population).
    This means that all the "shortcuts" being taken by naive genetic screening are pretty useless. In the case of Parkinsons, the ca. 40 genes involved in the human population can only "explain" about 50% of inheritable effects, with the caveats noted above for individual genes.

    The general lesson is that we are dealing with very complex, highly integrated networks where it is the network rather than individual genes (factors) that is determinant. With sufficient complexity, individual effects are largely unknowable.

    "Intelligence" (whatever that is) may be a similar, partly unknowable complex network.

    In the case of Parkinsons, the ca. 40 genes involved in the human population can only “explain” about 50% of inheritable effects, with the caveats noted above for individual genes.

    For the sake of argument, if a lot of ailments were caused by too much or too little of some micro nutrient x then either

    - a diet with too much or too little x

    or

    - a gene that retained or expelled too much x

    would have the same result.

    #

    for example

    say NW Europe had a poor climate for neolithic crops leading to it becoming populated by dairy farmers and that led to lactose tolerance and milk drinking to get enough calories…

    however milk has very little iron so a gene that retained iron might be selected for in NW Europe as a “good” gene until a diet comes along providing sufficient iron and the good gene now retains too much iron and it becomes a bad gene.

    #

    extending that example – how many regions in neolithic Eurasia had a deficiency or surfeit in some micro nutrient or other where something similar may have occurred?

    I’d guess hundreds.

    tailored diet and tailored medicine may be two sides of the same coin

    #

    regarding IQ the many genes of small effect associated with intelligence may simply be the genes related to a healthy brain i.e. a healthy brain is intelligent

    (genes with large effect and a downside would be a special case)

    Read More
  37. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @FKA Max
    I just had another look at the NY Times article, specifically this sentence:

    “These women tend to be advantaged,” she said, and to take better care of themselves during pregnancy; they were less likely to smoke and more likely to breast-feed, compared to the younger mothers.
     
    Then I listened to this interview with Stuart Ritchie:

    Does Breastfeeding Increase IQ?
    More or Less: Behind the Stats

    A major 30-year study claims to show breastfed babies become more intelligent, higher earning adults. It's not the first time we've heard that breastfeeding raises IQ levels; but is this evidence any more convincing? Ruth Alexander and Hannah Moore explore the details with Dr Stuart Ritchie from The University of Edinburgh.
    This programme was first broadcast on the BBC World Service.
     

    - http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02rzdl8

    Mr. Ritchie doubts that breastfeeding increases cognitive ability, because the parents in the Brazilian study were not specifically tested for IQ, and he believes this to be a significant confounder/weakness of the study.

    Since my other comments in this thread were mostly concerning the relationship between iodine deficiency and lowered cognitive functioning/ability, I checked whether there were any differences in the iodine content of breast milk and infant formula. Again, there is conflicting evidence on the subject:

    Formula as Good as Breastmilk for Iodine Levels (2013)


    The mean age of the mothers was about 33, 62% were white, and 56% had a graduate or professional degree.
    Overall, Leung and colleagues found similar concentrations of urinary iodine across groups, and all met iodine sufficiency standards
    [...]
    Leung warned, however, that the study was limited because several potential confounders -- including iodine concentrations of maternal urine, breastmilk, maternal multivitamins, and infant formula -- were not measured.

    Also, the study involved a Boston-area convenience sample, making it a homogeneous population and it may not be representative of the general U.S. population. More studies would be needed to confirm whether these findings are similar for infants nationwide, she said.
     

    Iodine content of infant formulas and iodine intake of premature babies: high risk of iodine deficiency. Ares et al. (1994) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7820714

    As part of a study of thyroid function in premature babies, the iodine content of their mothers' breast milk, that of 32 formulas from different brands used in Spain, and that of 127 formulas used in other countries was determined. Breast milk contained more iodine--mean (SEM) 10 (1) microgram/dl--than most of the formulas, especially those for premature babies. Iodine intakes were therefore below the recommended daily amount (RDA) for newborns: babies of 27-30 weeks' gestational age took 3.1 (1.1) micrograms/day at 5 days of age and 29.8 (2.7) micrograms by 2 months of age. This problem is not exclusive to Spanish premature babies as the iodine content of many of the formulas on sale in other countries was also inadequate. It is concluded that preterm infants who are formula fed are at high risk of iodine deficiency.
     
    Could breastfeeding actually increase the IQ of infants due to breast milk containing more iodine on average than infant formula, if the mothers themselves are not suffering from iodine deficiency?

    Could breastfeeding actually increase the IQ of infants due to breast milk containing more iodine on average than infant formula, if the mothers themselves are not suffering from iodine deficiency?

    Since first reading up on this stuff I’ve thought the obvious place to put brain boosting adaptations is breast milk.

    In which case the answer to your question might be it depends i.e. there may be genes for optimizing the iodine in breast milk and not all women may have them (or all of them).

    If correct this might explain conflicting studies.

    If correct then
    - if your family is smart then breast feed 100%
    - if your family is dumb then maybe get formula (probably Japanese).

    Read More
  38. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @FKA Max
    Thank you, Mr. Thompson.

    As Angela Leung pointed out:


    Although the overall adult population in the United States remains iodine sufficient in recent national surveys, a subset of pregnant and lactating women may have inadequate dietary iodine intake
     
    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/iq-does-not-exist-lead-poisoning-aside/#comment-1825370

    Until recently, about 25% of the iodine in the diet was from wheat, because iodine was used in the processing of flour. Now, however, a lot of flour in the U.S. is processed with a chemical cousin of iodine, bromide (potassium bromate), which helps makes flour doughier, rise higher, and gives the loaf a better appearance. But bromide is a double-edged sword: not only has it replaced iodine, it may block the activity of iodine. That’s also true for two more of iodine’s chemical cousins – chlorine and fluoride, both of which are common in drinking water. [...] And people are using less and less iodized table salt at home, because of the misguided medical advice (except in those with heart failure) to avoid salt.
     
    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/what-do-iq-researchers-really-think-about-the-flynn-effect/#comment-1706913

    Taking into account these recent changes in our Western dietary habits/ideology and food processing, one could even argue that breastfeeding compared to feeding one's baby sufficiently-iodinized infant formula could actually increase the risk of depressing one's baby's IQ, if, as Angela Leung warned, an increasing number of breast-feeding Western mothers are (unknowingly) iodine deficient.

    It is, indeed, a complex matter.

    I personally suspect that this return of higher rates of iodine deficiency among Westerners could be another contributor to the ``Woodley Effect,'' besides the boom in myopia patients, etc.:


    The myopic people have greater reaction time than emmetropic people even though when their refractive error is corrected. This adds refractive error as a new member in the row of factors that affects the VRT.
     
    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-woodley-effect/#comment-1765219

    But it was obvious that genes could not be the whole story. One of the clearest signs came from a 1969 study of Inuit people on the northern tip of Alaska whose lifestyle was changing2. Of adults who had grown up in isolated communities, only 2 of 131 had myopic eyes. But more than half of their children and grandchildren had the condition. Genetic changes happen too slowly to explain this rapid change — or the soaring rates in myopia that have since been documented all over the world (see ‘The march of myopia’).
     
    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-woodley-effect/#comment-1768329

    Maybe, after all, lead poisoning is only one of the lesser problems in the grand scheme of things?

    But bromide is a double-edged sword: not only has it replaced iodine, it may block the activity of iodine. That’s also true for two more of iodine’s chemical cousins – chlorine and fluoride, both of which are common in drinking water.

    Yes, there’s dozens of examples of this happening e.g. the switch away from iodine as an antiseptic in the dairy industry.

    (Also some places (like Argentina) have a lot of naturally flouridated water.)

    (Pure guess) this may even be the connection to lead – lead iodide is a toxin so maybe the lead is reacting with iodine in the body both reducing the iodine available for brain growth and creating a toxin?

    Read More
  39. The argument against IQ is primarily because it shows that blacks are genetically less intelligent than Whites. This goes against the “we’re all the same!” philosophy of irrational liberalism. We’re all the same….even if we need “diversity”. Positing a biological/genetic component of intelligence must be stopped at all costs, according to the left. Why? Because if it is true, then the left’s entire narrative of universal equality falls apart. And most researchers now admit there is a definite genetic component, even if it is not 100% of intelligence and even if we don’t know all the genes associated with such a nebulous concept.

    IQ measures something. This is obvious because of all the correlations between certain behaviors and IQ. Does it measure intelligence? You have to define intelligence first. Do we even have a universal definition of what intelligence is? Apparently not.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Psychometricians tell us there is only one intelligence 'cause factor g. Ok, i believe they are saying, even they still don't perceived, that intelligence is a system, just like human [or being] organism with many sub-systems there.

    No there such thing emotional intelligence separated from general intelligence. I agree. The problem is that ''they'' are just repeating the same old fashioned arguments without give us new [and redundant] insights to complete this puzzle.

    There is such thing ''emotional/instinctive/logic to rational mode'' inside general intelligence-system. Some people have more developed this area, like, emotional/limbic area, than others. Seems obvious to conclude.

    Yes, there is such thing ''emotional intelligence'', as well instinctive intelligence, as well logic TO rational intelligence, but all this are in the domain of general intelligence, so they can be also treated as ''sub-intelligence'', just like solar system/general intelligence to their planets/ psycho-cognitive diversity or [re]combinations of the ''standard-model'' of general intelligence.

    All individual ''general intelligence's'' are equal, but some them are more equal than others.

    Because many psychometricians lean on the right so they tend to dispise the gradient of the spectrum by the poles.
    , @alan2102
    "Positing a biological/genetic component of intelligence must be stopped at all costs, according to the left. Why? Because if it is true, then the left’s entire narrative of universal equality falls apart."

    No, what must be stopped is the ugly racial supremacism and classism that associates with -- and always has associated with, sometimes in most egregious forms (e.g. Nazi eugenics) -- genetic determinism. Arthur de Gobineau, H S Chamberlain, Madison Grant, Lothrop Stoddard, the Nazi racial "scientists", and a whole slew of others, too many to name; it is a long, loathsome and at times overtly criminal history. Ideas associated with genetic determinism, and energized by genetic determinism, have been responsible for hundreds of millions killed, maimed, tortured, enslaved, immiserated, etc.

    THAT is what the left objects to, and what every decent human being objects to. Thank God the left has so objected, and been largely successful. Thanks to the left and political correctness, we now live in a much more decent world, in some respects, than we did 50 years ago or 100 years ago. For example, you cannot now lynch blacks, and you can't let loose your inner bigot and yell "nigger!" at a black person anymore, whereas 60 years ago you could. That is progress, for which we owe the left. Much more progress is needed, and we are still living in a racist society, but at least we've come that far. Thank God.

    The right was of course useless, never lifting a finger to police itself, much less participate in the march of human progress. And why is that? Because ugly bigotry and viciousness reflects what the right IS, constitutionally. The right is retarded, reptilian. Their consciousness is monopolized by regressive, philogenetically archaic impulses -- dominance hierarchies, primitive territorialism, and of course racism (just one facet of their retarded natures). Or to put it bluntly: they're assholes, just barely fit for human civilization, and that is being charitable. You can take right-wingers out of the jungle, but you can't take the jungle out of right-wingers.

    I have no trouble with the idea that intelligence (as defined by psychometricians) exists and has perhaps some modest genetic component. That idea, itself, is no big deal. What IS a big deal is the associations, and the way in which reactionaries and closet fascists wish to use that idea to justify and advance gross social injustice, wild disparities of wealth and income (utterly unrelated to merit), wild disparities in access to health care, a wildly racist criminal and penal "justice" system, and general viciousness and cruelty. And make no mistake: that IS what this IQ thing is really about. Armies of racist troglodytes, neo-nazis, and miscellaneous right-wing assholes LOVE the idea that blacks can be proven inferior to whites by way of IQ tests. That idea does wonders for their reactionary, anti-human agenda. They are anxious to roll-back the last century of human progress, and the racial IQ story is a golden gift to them. Again, THAT is what the left objects to -- and for god damn good reason.

    As for the "left's narrative of universal equality", do you mean the strange, unjustifiable idea that society should seek fairness and opportunity for all? Almighty God, Forbid It!
    , @CanSpeccy

    The argument against IQ is primarily because it shows that blacks are genetically less intelligent than Whites. This goes against the “we’re all the same!” philosophy of irrational liberalism.
     
    Nonsense. If IQ tests results show racial differences in IQ, so be it. What IQ test do not measure is human potential in all domains and indeed can totally fail in identifying genius, as the Terman study proved and as the cases of Nobel Prize winners such as J.D. Watson and Richard Feynman prove.

    However, what IQ tests can do is give people who are good at certain types of petty puzzle a sense of entitlement because of their superior intelligence — a sense of entitlement liable to minimize the inclination to hard work, while giving others to understand that because of their supposed lack of potential they might as well not bother trying to succeed at anything other than being a surf.

    In addition, IQ testing seems to give those supposedly knowledgeable on the subject an insufferable sense of power and superiority.
  40. The Z Blog says: • Website
    @alan2102
    "It seems to me that anyone with IQ above 60 should understand that ‘intelligence’, by almost any definition, can not indeed be measured by a single number."

    Ha. Yes. But the psychometricians are desperate to claim otherwise; emotionally and intellectually, they are totally invested in that idea; "all in", so to say.

    This is a pretty good example of what psychology calls projection. This form of “argument” is common with the creationists and ID’ers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    What is your "this"? What you are replying to or what he was replying to/criticising?
  41. The Z Blog says: • Website

    Assuming professionals in the field read this stuff, I wonder why no one has gained access to the rather large database of IQ scores held by NIH going back decades. One institute in particular conducts longitudinal studies on the effects of specific treatment regimens. For example, children diagnosed with a specific form of cancer. They will get a base line, administer a range of tests (WISC, Ravens, etc) and then re-examine over the course of years, even after the patient is cancer free and no longer in treatment.

    There’s a lots of data to examine the impact of environmental factors.

    Read More
  42. Agent76 says:

    March 11, 2014 Harvard: Fluoride Can Increase Autism and Attention Deficit Disorder Government and Top University Studies: Fluoride Lowers IQ and Causes Other Health Problems

    We reported last month that a Harvard study found that fluoride can lower children’s IQ by 7 points, and that numerous government reports have shown that fluoride can injure the brain and neurological system. Now, one of the world’s most prestigious medical journals – Lancet – has published a Harvard study showing that fluoride is one of the chemicals which can increase autism and attention deficit disorder.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/harvard-fluoride-can-increase-autism-and-attention-deficit-disorder/5372893

    Read More
  43. OK, enough of this. No, one number can’t explain the “whole person”. Nobody ever said it could. But it can make a pretty good guess. lead poisoning? Give me a break. As one writer says, they must be a lot of it in Africa.

    Read More
    • Replies: @alan2102
    "lead poisoning? Give me a break. As one writer says, they must be a lot of it in Africa."

    Yes, there's a lot of lead poisoning in Africa. Also other poisoning, both inorganics and organics, many of which are known to impair brain development and IQ expression. Also a lot of high-fluoride drinking water (powerful goitrogen, iodine antagonist). Also a vast amount of iron deficiency, often responsible for lowering IQ by 10 points or more. Also a vast amount of iodine deficiency, often responsible for lowering IQ by 10 points or more. Also a great deal of selenium deficiency; selenium being essential to thyroid hormone utilization (i.e. "iodine utilization", to put it briefly); selenium deficit is the probable cause of cretinism -- profound IQ loss (like, scores of points). Also a vast amount of untreated parasitic infestation, which alone can cause dramatic IQ decrement. Also.... oh, geez, it is late and I don't feel like continuing. Suffice to say it is a long list. A list that will never be discussed in detail by the "race realists" and "HBD" crowd. Also never to be discussed by the "race realist" crowd is the way in which the West/North has looted and fucked-over Africa for generations, RESULTING in much (though not all) of the foregoing; i.e. our wonderful high-IQ whites created a continental context of chaos, poverty, chronic malnutrition and poor health, causing low population IQs, and then they conclude, since the majority of the African fuckees happen to be black, that it is the genetic inferiority of the black race that causes the low IQs! It is really quite a spectacle. Lies mixed with willful ignorance mixed with criminality mixed with blindness to the criminality mixed with toxic sludge. Delicious!
  44. @Anonymous White Male
    The argument against IQ is primarily because it shows that blacks are genetically less intelligent than Whites. This goes against the "we're all the same!" philosophy of irrational liberalism. We're all the same....even if we need "diversity". Positing a biological/genetic component of intelligence must be stopped at all costs, according to the left. Why? Because if it is true, then the left's entire narrative of universal equality falls apart. And most researchers now admit there is a definite genetic component, even if it is not 100% of intelligence and even if we don't know all the genes associated with such a nebulous concept.

    IQ measures something. This is obvious because of all the correlations between certain behaviors and IQ. Does it measure intelligence? You have to define intelligence first. Do we even have a universal definition of what intelligence is? Apparently not.

    Psychometricians tell us there is only one intelligence ’cause factor g. Ok, i believe they are saying, even they still don’t perceived, that intelligence is a system, just like human [or being] organism with many sub-systems there.

    No there such thing emotional intelligence separated from general intelligence. I agree. The problem is that ”they” are just repeating the same old fashioned arguments without give us new [and redundant] insights to complete this puzzle.

    There is such thing ”emotional/instinctive/logic to rational mode” inside general intelligence-system. Some people have more developed this area, like, emotional/limbic area, than others. Seems obvious to conclude.

    Yes, there is such thing ”emotional intelligence”, as well instinctive intelligence, as well logic TO rational intelligence, but all this are in the domain of general intelligence, so they can be also treated as ”sub-intelligence”, just like solar system/general intelligence to their planets/ psycho-cognitive diversity or [re]combinations of the ”standard-model” of general intelligence.

    All individual ”general intelligence’s” are equal, but some them are more equal than others.

    Because many psychometricians lean on the right so they tend to dispise the gradient of the spectrum by the poles.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johan Meyer
    Doesn't the causal explanation and correlation for g fall off at the higher end of the IQ scale?
  45. And dentists still put lead fillings in the people’s teeth merily. How come?

    Read More
  46. Three comments regarding lead poisoning. First off, one should expect a correlation between parental exposure and child exposure, which reduces the apparent effect of iq loss by correcting for (subtracting) parental IQ.

    One mechanism by which parental and child exposure is correlated is the neighbourhood exposure to lead fallout from gasoline (it was not equal opportunity—some neighbourhoods had far more lead than others prior to phaseout of leaded, which happened quite recently outside North America). In the US, Black neighbourhoods often had far higher blood lead levels.

    A second mechanism of parent child correlation of poisoning is living in the same neighbourhood (or similar, in terms of infrastructure e.g. lead water pipes, paint), which is a particular problem in the US, disproportionately affecting blacks. Find e.g. blood lead level distribution (e.g. histogram) data from NHANES II (leaded gasoline era) and III (post gasoline, mainly pipes and paint).

    Finally, there is an issue with the use of blood lead level as an epidemiological proxy variable. I spelled this issue out in my first comment on unz, here.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto

    One mechanism by which parental and child exposure is correlated is the neighbourhood exposure to lead fallout from gasoline (it was not equal opportunity—some neighbourhoods had far more lead than others prior to phaseout of leaded, which happened quite recently outside North America). In the US, Black neighbourhoods often had far higher blood lead levels.
     
    Lead poisoning in rural deep south too*

    Blacks on rural areas of deep south tend to have the lowest IQ among american blacks. Interestingly they score higher in urban areas of northeast.

  47. @Santoculto
    Psychometricians tell us there is only one intelligence 'cause factor g. Ok, i believe they are saying, even they still don't perceived, that intelligence is a system, just like human [or being] organism with many sub-systems there.

    No there such thing emotional intelligence separated from general intelligence. I agree. The problem is that ''they'' are just repeating the same old fashioned arguments without give us new [and redundant] insights to complete this puzzle.

    There is such thing ''emotional/instinctive/logic to rational mode'' inside general intelligence-system. Some people have more developed this area, like, emotional/limbic area, than others. Seems obvious to conclude.

    Yes, there is such thing ''emotional intelligence'', as well instinctive intelligence, as well logic TO rational intelligence, but all this are in the domain of general intelligence, so they can be also treated as ''sub-intelligence'', just like solar system/general intelligence to their planets/ psycho-cognitive diversity or [re]combinations of the ''standard-model'' of general intelligence.

    All individual ''general intelligence's'' are equal, but some them are more equal than others.

    Because many psychometricians lean on the right so they tend to dispise the gradient of the spectrum by the poles.

    Doesn’t the causal explanation and correlation for g fall off at the higher end of the IQ scale?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    I don't understand your question.

    Please, do it again in the way i can understand it.
  48. alan2102 says:
    @Anonymous White Male
    The argument against IQ is primarily because it shows that blacks are genetically less intelligent than Whites. This goes against the "we're all the same!" philosophy of irrational liberalism. We're all the same....even if we need "diversity". Positing a biological/genetic component of intelligence must be stopped at all costs, according to the left. Why? Because if it is true, then the left's entire narrative of universal equality falls apart. And most researchers now admit there is a definite genetic component, even if it is not 100% of intelligence and even if we don't know all the genes associated with such a nebulous concept.

    IQ measures something. This is obvious because of all the correlations between certain behaviors and IQ. Does it measure intelligence? You have to define intelligence first. Do we even have a universal definition of what intelligence is? Apparently not.

    “Positing a biological/genetic component of intelligence must be stopped at all costs, according to the left. Why? Because if it is true, then the left’s entire narrative of universal equality falls apart.”

    No, what must be stopped is the ugly racial supremacism and classism that associates with — and always has associated with, sometimes in most egregious forms (e.g. Nazi eugenics) — genetic determinism. Arthur de Gobineau, H S Chamberlain, Madison Grant, Lothrop Stoddard, the Nazi racial “scientists”, and a whole slew of others, too many to name; it is a long, loathsome and at times overtly criminal history. Ideas associated with genetic determinism, and energized by genetic determinism, have been responsible for hundreds of millions killed, maimed, tortured, enslaved, immiserated, etc.

    THAT is what the left objects to, and what every decent human being objects to. Thank God the left has so objected, and been largely successful. Thanks to the left and political correctness, we now live in a much more decent world, in some respects, than we did 50 years ago or 100 years ago. For example, you cannot now lynch blacks, and you can’t let loose your inner bigot and yell “nigger!” at a black person anymore, whereas 60 years ago you could. That is progress, for which we owe the left. Much more progress is needed, and we are still living in a racist society, but at least we’ve come that far. Thank God.

    The right was of course useless, never lifting a finger to police itself, much less participate in the march of human progress. And why is that? Because ugly bigotry and viciousness reflects what the right IS, constitutionally. The right is retarded, reptilian. Their consciousness is monopolized by regressive, philogenetically archaic impulses — dominance hierarchies, primitive territorialism, and of course racism (just one facet of their retarded natures). Or to put it bluntly: they’re assholes, just barely fit for human civilization, and that is being charitable. You can take right-wingers out of the jungle, but you can’t take the jungle out of right-wingers.

    I have no trouble with the idea that intelligence (as defined by psychometricians) exists and has perhaps some modest genetic component. That idea, itself, is no big deal. What IS a big deal is the associations, and the way in which reactionaries and closet fascists wish to use that idea to justify and advance gross social injustice, wild disparities of wealth and income (utterly unrelated to merit), wild disparities in access to health care, a wildly racist criminal and penal “justice” system, and general viciousness and cruelty. And make no mistake: that IS what this IQ thing is really about. Armies of racist troglodytes, neo-nazis, and miscellaneous right-wing assholes LOVE the idea that blacks can be proven inferior to whites by way of IQ tests. That idea does wonders for their reactionary, anti-human agenda. They are anxious to roll-back the last century of human progress, and the racial IQ story is a golden gift to them. Again, THAT is what the left objects to — and for god damn good reason.

    As for the “left’s narrative of universal equality”, do you mean the strange, unjustifiable idea that society should seek fairness and opportunity for all? Almighty God, Forbid It!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto

    That idea, itself, is no big deal. What IS a big deal is the associations, and the way in which reactionaries and closet fascists wish to use that idea to justify and advance gross social injustice, wild disparities of wealth and income (utterly unrelated to merit), wild disparities in access to health care, a wildly racist criminal and penal “justice” system, and general viciousness and cruelty
     
    You are

    generalizing

    and

    being BIASED against a diversity of subtypes of right's wingers and NON-lunatics on the left-- people.


    Regular right wing people believe in the hard working and meritocracy, you have/and deserve what you plant. If you are careless farmer so it's YOUR FAULT, primarily.

    This is their ideal, i'm not saying it's factual or totally correct but it's make some sense.

    And yes, there are a lot of duller right winger who believe that a bilionaire just deserve be bilionaire in contrast of masses of very poor people. They believe accumulates enormous amount of money [subsequently live in the luxurious lifestyle and don't give a schultz for social issues] is a kind of morally accepted talent.

    As for the “left’s narrative of universal equality”, do you mean the strange, unjustifiable idea that society should seek fairness and opportunity for all? Almighty God, Forbid It!
     
    So so-meone explain me the existence of super-rich leftist celebrities**

    Opportunity for all mean ''for all who are not regular whites*''

    En masse immigration to the european countries blaming current living white people for all sins is fair* or just revenge*

    Opportunity for all, less for white race remain existent...
    , @anon
    So even if you secretly believed
    - base IQ was primarily genetic (possibly downgraded by factors like lead and iodine)
    and (mostly) the result of
    - many genes of small effect
    which would lead to the possibility that
    - different populations could have different frequencies of those genes
    then you'd want to deny it anyway for political/moral reasons - which is okay.

    However assuming that secretly you do believe it's genetic and there are differences in the average between various groups then by denying it you'd be effectively sentencing dumb people to be dumb forever with no solutions to the problems caused by their dumbness.

    If the HBD case is true then the only way to fix it is by changing the gene frequencies.

    This could be done without publicly accepting racial differences - just admitting that intelligence is partly genetic would change people's mating behavior.

    Say mating decisions were brains vs brawn (where brawn means looks, health etc) I'd say -
    - women in the top 1/3 already weight it 60:40
    - women in the middle 1/3 maybe 50:50
    - and women in the bottom 1/3 40:60
    and by telling the truth the middle might shift to 55:45 and the bottom 1/3 to 50:50.

    This would have a huge impact on future generations, both on the ex-dumb and the people currently paying for the dumb.

    So if you secretly believed the HBD case was true then your position could still make sense politically - for example it could mean you thought you needed a large dumb underclass as a voting bank but there is no moral case for ensuring dumb people have dumb kids forever with no way out.
    , @Anonymous White Male
    "No, what must be stopped is the ugly racial supremacism and classism that associates with — and always has associated with, sometimes in most egregious forms (e.g. Nazi eugenics) — genetic determinism. Arthur de Gobineau, H S Chamberlain, Madison Grant, Lothrop Stoddard, the Nazi racial “scientists”, and a whole slew of others, too many to name; it is a long, loathsome and at times overtly criminal history. Ideas associated with genetic determinism, and energized by genetic determinism, have been responsible for hundreds of millions killed, maimed, tortured, enslaved, immiserated, etc."

    Where to begin? Your present your laughable straw men as somehow being the sum total of all racial realism. The truth is unpleasant to the left. It does not fit your childish narrative of "universal equality" so anyone that ever posited something that is not politically correct today has to be 100% wrong. First of all, there is no such thing as universal equality. If you can't admit that, you cannot think. Give us your definition of racial supremacism and classism. I would venture that it tends toward the "Any suggestion that there is ANY difference between the races is an evil lie that MUST be outlawed because someone's feeling might get hurt". Race realism recognizes that their are racial differences. You cannot admit that. You will do whatever you can to suppress any truth concerning race at any cost. In fact, you deny there are any such thing as races, even though you acknowledge them when negroes can not succeed on their own. You are not interested in the truth.

    Why don't you show us examples of the hundreds of millions killed, maimed, tortured, enslaved, immiserated, etc.? Let's pretend the Nazis were guilty as charged. Were the Communists, Soviet, Chinese, and Cambodian "genetic determinists"? How many American Indians were there? Were the few million black slaves enslaved because of "genetic determinism" or just sold into slavery by their own people? Frankly, you can't come up with hundreds of millions unless you assume that any inequality in the history of the world is due to "genetic determinism". If you are correct, the years since 1964 have been essentially two generations of blacks. And yet they are even more backward today than they were in 1964. Which would mean you are wrong. Turn the mirror on yourself.

    , @Anonymous White Male
    "THAT is what the left objects to, and what every decent human being objects to. Thank God the left has so objected, and been largely successful. Thanks to the left and political correctness, we now live in a much more decent world, in some respects, than we did 50 years ago or 100 years ago. For example, you cannot now lynch blacks, and you can’t let loose your inner bigot and yell “nigger!” at a black person anymore, whereas 60 years ago you could. That is progress, for which we owe the left. Much more progress is needed, and we are still living in a racist society, but at least we’ve come that far. Thank God."

    So, the left is the representative of every decent human being, eh? How are you any different than Catholic churchmen that knew what the truth was and had no problem with burning people at the stake because it was God's will? You're not. You're just another self-righteous prick that assumes the moral superiority of your religion and wishes it imposed on everyone else. Why are you right? Just because. The difference between the left and right is that the right is capable of observing the results of policy and seeing that the promise does not equal the reality. The left is not. The left will squeal that communism didn't work because it was not done right and never have the mental capacity to examine whether it was a flawed system that could not work.

    Lynching is such a "noble" crusade for you dim bulbs. How many blacks were lynched? From 1882-1968, 4,743 lynchings occurred in the United States. Of these people that were lynched 3,446 were black. That means that over one-fourth of those lynched were Whites. Does the left even recognize this salient point? No, because only black suffering is important to your self-righteous narrative. No, people were lynched because they broke the law, not for walking while black. While this was justice outside of the legal system, so what? Who is the legal system supposed to be for? The lawyers? And try to be honest: lynching kept the black community in line. Who is keeping them in line in Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore, anywhere where there are too many blacks? No one. They do not keep their own people in line. Apparently, the slave states were right about how to make blacks at least pretend to be White.

    Oh, and "nigger". This is just a word. I'm sorry, but for blacks and their apologists, this somehow justifies theft, rape, and murder. Do you ever see a White person get upset about being called a honky. No, you don't. We just laugh. Remember, sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me. It looks like blacks aren't civilized enough to realize this. You let one thing slip. You said, "Thanks to the left and political correctness, we now live in a much more decent world, in some respects, than we did 50 years ago or 100 years ago". In SOME respects. But, not in all. The truth is that the black race is a parasite that can only glom onto a host to live a first world life. So, the White race has not benefited from their presence. And Whites constantly move to get away from black dysfunction. But, you and your ilk want to prevent that from happening because freedom of association is not important to you and you are incapable of admitting that freedom of disassociation is just as important. You can't allow this because it shows what blacks are not capable of. But, we already see that in Africa, don't we? Remember South Africa and Rhodesia?
    , @Anonymous White Male
    "As for the “left’s narrative of universal equality”, do you mean the strange, unjustifiable idea that society should seek fairness and opportunity for all? Almighty God, Forbid It!"

    Yes, fairness for all is unjustifiable. Why? You cannot achieve it. No society ever has or ever will. Life is not fair. Everyone except the left knows this. And you don't really want opportunity for all. You want equal RESULTS for all. This is also impossible because, face it, people are not born equal. A few are actually physically and mentally disadvantaged. Some people are dreamers and have no grounding in reality. And some people are just lazy. Guess what? Some people are just evil, too.

    I find it amusing that when someone that calls themselves a leftist uses "God" as somehow justification for their self-righteous smugness. It is that left that has removed the concept of "God" from public discourse. But, they claim it when ever it suits their narrative. Like gay marriage. "Oh, God loves everyone!" Unfortunately, God doesn't love everyone. Read the Bible if you disagree. Anyone, any group of people that deny a concept exists when it doesn't support their position and then inserts it if it can has a specific name. They are called hypocrites. You are black, aren't you?
  49. @Johan Meyer
    Doesn't the causal explanation and correlation for g fall off at the higher end of the IQ scale?

    I don’t understand your question.

    Please, do it again in the way i can understand it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johan Meyer
    See the second paragraph of the introduction of this article. At lower IQs, there is little evidence for multiple intelligences, and g has the most explanetory power. The paper argues that education reduces the mental load that an IQ test presents, although it should also be possible that a baseline minimum general intelligence is needed before specialization becomes significant enough to be measured.
  50. @alan2102
    "Positing a biological/genetic component of intelligence must be stopped at all costs, according to the left. Why? Because if it is true, then the left’s entire narrative of universal equality falls apart."

    No, what must be stopped is the ugly racial supremacism and classism that associates with -- and always has associated with, sometimes in most egregious forms (e.g. Nazi eugenics) -- genetic determinism. Arthur de Gobineau, H S Chamberlain, Madison Grant, Lothrop Stoddard, the Nazi racial "scientists", and a whole slew of others, too many to name; it is a long, loathsome and at times overtly criminal history. Ideas associated with genetic determinism, and energized by genetic determinism, have been responsible for hundreds of millions killed, maimed, tortured, enslaved, immiserated, etc.

    THAT is what the left objects to, and what every decent human being objects to. Thank God the left has so objected, and been largely successful. Thanks to the left and political correctness, we now live in a much more decent world, in some respects, than we did 50 years ago or 100 years ago. For example, you cannot now lynch blacks, and you can't let loose your inner bigot and yell "nigger!" at a black person anymore, whereas 60 years ago you could. That is progress, for which we owe the left. Much more progress is needed, and we are still living in a racist society, but at least we've come that far. Thank God.

    The right was of course useless, never lifting a finger to police itself, much less participate in the march of human progress. And why is that? Because ugly bigotry and viciousness reflects what the right IS, constitutionally. The right is retarded, reptilian. Their consciousness is monopolized by regressive, philogenetically archaic impulses -- dominance hierarchies, primitive territorialism, and of course racism (just one facet of their retarded natures). Or to put it bluntly: they're assholes, just barely fit for human civilization, and that is being charitable. You can take right-wingers out of the jungle, but you can't take the jungle out of right-wingers.

    I have no trouble with the idea that intelligence (as defined by psychometricians) exists and has perhaps some modest genetic component. That idea, itself, is no big deal. What IS a big deal is the associations, and the way in which reactionaries and closet fascists wish to use that idea to justify and advance gross social injustice, wild disparities of wealth and income (utterly unrelated to merit), wild disparities in access to health care, a wildly racist criminal and penal "justice" system, and general viciousness and cruelty. And make no mistake: that IS what this IQ thing is really about. Armies of racist troglodytes, neo-nazis, and miscellaneous right-wing assholes LOVE the idea that blacks can be proven inferior to whites by way of IQ tests. That idea does wonders for their reactionary, anti-human agenda. They are anxious to roll-back the last century of human progress, and the racial IQ story is a golden gift to them. Again, THAT is what the left objects to -- and for god damn good reason.

    As for the "left's narrative of universal equality", do you mean the strange, unjustifiable idea that society should seek fairness and opportunity for all? Almighty God, Forbid It!

    That idea, itself, is no big deal. What IS a big deal is the associations, and the way in which reactionaries and closet fascists wish to use that idea to justify and advance gross social injustice, wild disparities of wealth and income (utterly unrelated to merit), wild disparities in access to health care, a wildly racist criminal and penal “justice” system, and general viciousness and cruelty

    You are

    generalizing

    and

    being BIASED against a diversity of subtypes of right’s wingers and NON-lunatics on the left– people.

    Regular right wing people believe in the hard working and meritocracy, you have/and deserve what you plant. If you are careless farmer so it’s YOUR FAULT, primarily.

    This is their ideal, i’m not saying it’s factual or totally correct but it’s make some sense.

    And yes, there are a lot of duller right winger who believe that a bilionaire just deserve be bilionaire in contrast of masses of very poor people. They believe accumulates enormous amount of money [subsequently live in the luxurious lifestyle and don't give a schultz for social issues] is a kind of morally accepted talent.

    As for the “left’s narrative of universal equality”, do you mean the strange, unjustifiable idea that society should seek fairness and opportunity for all? Almighty God, Forbid It!

    So so-meone explain me the existence of super-rich leftist celebrities**

    Opportunity for all mean ”for all who are not regular whites*”

    En masse immigration to the european countries blaming current living white people for all sins is fair* or just revenge*

    Opportunity for all, less for white race remain existent…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

    Regular right wing people believe in the hard working and meritocracy, you have/and deserve what you plant. If you are careless farmer so it’s YOUR FAULT, primarily.

    This is their ideal, i’m not saying it’s factual or totally correct but it’s make some sense.
     

    I agree that the main purpose of the IQ stuff is to justify the existing social order, and the racist component is only a minor part of that. Only it's not because 'regular right wing people believe' in something, but because it's the purpose of the dominant ideology.

    What I don't understand (perhaps my IQ isn't high enough) is how this justification works. What is this 'meritocracy', exactly? The farmer deserves what he plants, sure, but the high-IQ swindler who bankrupts the farmer, what does he deserve? I mean, it seems quite obvious to me that in this society the clever (high-IQ) people generally use their wits to relieve the hard-working ones of the products of their labor... No?

  51. @Johan Meyer
    Three comments regarding lead poisoning. First off, one should expect a correlation between parental exposure and child exposure, which reduces the apparent effect of iq loss by correcting for (subtracting) parental IQ.

    One mechanism by which parental and child exposure is correlated is the neighbourhood exposure to lead fallout from gasoline (it was not equal opportunity---some neighbourhoods had far more lead than others prior to phaseout of leaded, which happened quite recently outside North America). In the US, Black neighbourhoods often had far higher blood lead levels.

    A second mechanism of parent child correlation of poisoning is living in the same neighbourhood (or similar, in terms of infrastructure e.g. lead water pipes, paint), which is a particular problem in the US, disproportionately affecting blacks. Find e.g. blood lead level distribution (e.g. histogram) data from NHANES II (leaded gasoline era) and III (post gasoline, mainly pipes and paint).

    Finally, there is an issue with the use of blood lead level as an epidemiological proxy variable. I spelled this issue out in my first comment on unz, here.

    One mechanism by which parental and child exposure is correlated is the neighbourhood exposure to lead fallout from gasoline (it was not equal opportunity—some neighbourhoods had far more lead than others prior to phaseout of leaded, which happened quite recently outside North America). In the US, Black neighbourhoods often had far higher blood lead levels.

    Lead poisoning in rural deep south too*

    Blacks on rural areas of deep south tend to have the lowest IQ among american blacks. Interestingly they score higher in urban areas of northeast.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johan Meyer
    With regards to blacks in the rural south, there were depression era programs to supply lead paint to rural people, e.g. blacks in Alabama. In fairness, lead paint was a status object at the time, so a comparison with Obama phones is warrantes. See "Brush with Death: A Social History of Lead Poisoning" by Christian Warren, p9.
  52. THAT is what the left objects to, and what every decent human being objects to. Thank God the left has so objected, and been largely successful. Thanks to the left and political correctness, we now live in a much more decent world, in some respects, than we did 50 years ago or 100 years ago. For example, you cannot now lynch blacks, and you can’t let loose your inner bigot and yell “nigger!” at a black person anymore, whereas 60 years ago you could. That is progress, for which we owe the left. Much more progress is needed, and we are still living in a racist society, but at least we’ve come that far. Thank God.

    I agree that in the recent past western societies was not good for many people namely in the ”minorities’ but also for, maybe, majority of people who wasn’t white/OR jewish, OR/rich and powerful. But the ideometer was to the far right to the far left, it’s reasonable**

    Right wing have A LOT OF good points. They are just like soldier sentinels, they, on avg, no have the same sofistication many left-leaning have, but they are ALMOST right about what they are good, detect dangers, specially foreign dangers, while [not all] on the left usually believe the dangerous ones are within us.

    Both sides have their good and bad points, do you can agree with me in this part*

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    between and not within us, ;)

    even, in the end, everyone have their inner monster and inner saint, =)
  53. @Santoculto

    THAT is what the left objects to, and what every decent human being objects to. Thank God the left has so objected, and been largely successful. Thanks to the left and political correctness, we now live in a much more decent world, in some respects, than we did 50 years ago or 100 years ago. For example, you cannot now lynch blacks, and you can’t let loose your inner bigot and yell “nigger!” at a black person anymore, whereas 60 years ago you could. That is progress, for which we owe the left. Much more progress is needed, and we are still living in a racist society, but at least we’ve come that far. Thank God.
     
    I agree that in the recent past western societies was not good for many people namely in the ''minorities' but also for, maybe, majority of people who wasn't white/OR jewish, OR/rich and powerful. But the ideometer was to the far right to the far left, it's reasonable**

    Right wing have A LOT OF good points. They are just like soldier sentinels, they, on avg, no have the same sofistication many left-leaning have, but they are ALMOST right about what they are good, detect dangers, specially foreign dangers, while [not all] on the left usually believe the dangerous ones are within us.

    Both sides have their good and bad points, do you can agree with me in this part*

    between and not within us, ;)

    even, in the end, everyone have their inner monster and inner saint, =)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Jeeeeeeeezis

    AMONG


    https://media.giphy.com/media/hppWdK8gcmzXq/giphy.gif
  54. @JayMan
    Here's my problem with this study: it doesn't really address the genetic confound. Yes, it's totally plausible that lead negatively impacts IQ, but then it also sounded plausible that neighborhood deprivation did so, as well.

    I'd feel much more comfortable if someone had large pedigree study on lead exposure akin to Amir Sariaslan's work (Sariaslan et al 2016).

    Jayman, you are black. You belong to the race with the lowest IQ.

    Read More
  55. @Santoculto
    between and not within us, ;)

    even, in the end, everyone have their inner monster and inner saint, =)

    Jeeeeeeeezis

    AMONG

    Read More
  56. @James Thompson
    Thanks Jayman. Not sure about that. Sure, Amir was able to show that social drift accounted for the loss of SES in schizophrenia, but I think that the Dunedin study does not have too much of a problem in that regard. I will think about it further.

    James Thompson are you married? If so, is your wife Asian or black?

    Read More
  57. There are 3 races: Caucasian, Asians, blacks. Caucasians (the West) have the highest IQs, Asians are second, blacks at the bottom. Any Caucasians who do not believe in IQ can move to Asia or Africa.

    Read More
  58. @Santoculto

    That idea, itself, is no big deal. What IS a big deal is the associations, and the way in which reactionaries and closet fascists wish to use that idea to justify and advance gross social injustice, wild disparities of wealth and income (utterly unrelated to merit), wild disparities in access to health care, a wildly racist criminal and penal “justice” system, and general viciousness and cruelty
     
    You are

    generalizing

    and

    being BIASED against a diversity of subtypes of right's wingers and NON-lunatics on the left-- people.


    Regular right wing people believe in the hard working and meritocracy, you have/and deserve what you plant. If you are careless farmer so it's YOUR FAULT, primarily.

    This is their ideal, i'm not saying it's factual or totally correct but it's make some sense.

    And yes, there are a lot of duller right winger who believe that a bilionaire just deserve be bilionaire in contrast of masses of very poor people. They believe accumulates enormous amount of money [subsequently live in the luxurious lifestyle and don't give a schultz for social issues] is a kind of morally accepted talent.

    As for the “left’s narrative of universal equality”, do you mean the strange, unjustifiable idea that society should seek fairness and opportunity for all? Almighty God, Forbid It!
     
    So so-meone explain me the existence of super-rich leftist celebrities**

    Opportunity for all mean ''for all who are not regular whites*''

    En masse immigration to the european countries blaming current living white people for all sins is fair* or just revenge*

    Opportunity for all, less for white race remain existent...

    Regular right wing people believe in the hard working and meritocracy, you have/and deserve what you plant. If you are careless farmer so it’s YOUR FAULT, primarily.

    This is their ideal, i’m not saying it’s factual or totally correct but it’s make some sense.

    I agree that the main purpose of the IQ stuff is to justify the existing social order, and the racist component is only a minor part of that. Only it’s not because ‘regular right wing people believe’ in something, but because it’s the purpose of the dominant ideology.

    What I don’t understand (perhaps my IQ isn’t high enough) is how this justification works. What is this ‘meritocracy’, exactly? The farmer deserves what he plants, sure, but the high-IQ swindler who bankrupts the farmer, what does he deserve? I mean, it seems quite obvious to me that in this society the clever (high-IQ) people generally use their wits to relieve the hard-working ones of the products of their labor… No?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Most reasonable people whatever their ideological positions believe that corrupt ones must be jailed at the best, regular right wingers included.

    Right wing mindset is strongly explicitly utilitarian. This explain partially why they are on avg less prone to enjoy arts. Many them also believe because entrepreneurs are those who create jobs so they are valuable than those who don't do it. Of course we will have a diversity of this basal ideological guidelines.

    Funnily they are on avg very proletarian mind.

    No there such thing racist component at least among most of hbd types. Charles Murray is not racist firstly because he married a non-white non-Jewish woman and because he emphasize that east Asians in IQ hierarchies appear to be insufferably smarter than "whites". Yes he's more classicist even I don't demonize him because unfortunately poor people are not poor just because the rich is disproportionately evil, selfish and/or greedy but also because they/the poor tend to be less CLEVER or high profile smart street and many them simply can't control their sexual impulses and have kids before build a comfortable economic stability == the cycle of poverty. But there are a lot of good people among the poor. Unfortunately we have many bad apples promiscuously mixed/interacting with good apples among them. It's not rare we have good control, conscious and honest parents with criminal sons. Poor tend to be more like that also because bad social conditions increase the fertility of sociopathic alphas over less territorial and aggressive men.

    Many right wingers unfortunately as well happen with many left wingers tend to be more partisans than citizens and tend to "rationalize" the wealthy and sins of "their" rich. What "liberals" usually do with their favorite powerful people with the same ideological positions for example Madame Hillary Clinton in this last American election.
    , @utu
    "The farmer deserves what he plants, sure, but the high-IQ swindler who bankrupts the farmer, what does he deserve? "

    Swindle on account of his higher IQ deserves the fruits of his swindle. This is the amoral morality of IQers.
    , @CanSpeccy

    The farmer deserves what he plants, sure
     
    Oh no. Not in an IQ-ocracy.

    Working hard and expecting to reap what one sows, whether it be a sack of rice or a Nobel Prize is so Confucian. Indeed it is just taking advantage of one's more intelligent neighbor who is undoubtedly thinking very fine thoughts and deserves the best of whatever life has to offer, whether it be an education at Harvard or a place on the company board.
  59. @Mao Cheng Ji

    Regular right wing people believe in the hard working and meritocracy, you have/and deserve what you plant. If you are careless farmer so it’s YOUR FAULT, primarily.

    This is their ideal, i’m not saying it’s factual or totally correct but it’s make some sense.
     

    I agree that the main purpose of the IQ stuff is to justify the existing social order, and the racist component is only a minor part of that. Only it's not because 'regular right wing people believe' in something, but because it's the purpose of the dominant ideology.

    What I don't understand (perhaps my IQ isn't high enough) is how this justification works. What is this 'meritocracy', exactly? The farmer deserves what he plants, sure, but the high-IQ swindler who bankrupts the farmer, what does he deserve? I mean, it seems quite obvious to me that in this society the clever (high-IQ) people generally use their wits to relieve the hard-working ones of the products of their labor... No?

    Most reasonable people whatever their ideological positions believe that corrupt ones must be jailed at the best, regular right wingers included.

    Right wing mindset is strongly explicitly utilitarian. This explain partially why they are on avg less prone to enjoy arts. Many them also believe because entrepreneurs are those who create jobs so they are valuable than those who don’t do it. Of course we will have a diversity of this basal ideological guidelines.

    Funnily they are on avg very proletarian mind.

    No there such thing racist component at least among most of hbd types. Charles Murray is not racist firstly because he married a non-white non-Jewish woman and because he emphasize that east Asians in IQ hierarchies appear to be insufferably smarter than “whites”. Yes he’s more classicist even I don’t demonize him because unfortunately poor people are not poor just because the rich is disproportionately evil, selfish and/or greedy but also because they/the poor tend to be less CLEVER or high profile smart street and many them simply can’t control their sexual impulses and have kids before build a comfortable economic stability == the cycle of poverty. But there are a lot of good people among the poor. Unfortunately we have many bad apples promiscuously mixed/interacting with good apples among them. It’s not rare we have good control, conscious and honest parents with criminal sons. Poor tend to be more like that also because bad social conditions increase the fertility of sociopathic alphas over less territorial and aggressive men.

    Many right wingers unfortunately as well happen with many left wingers tend to be more partisans than citizens and tend to “rationalize” the wealthy and sins of “their” rich. What “liberals” usually do with their favorite powerful people with the same ideological positions for example Madame Hillary Clinton in this last American election.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

    Charles Murray is not racist firstly because he married a non-white non-Jewish woman and because he emphasize that east Asians in IQ hierarchies appear to be insufferably smarter than “whites”.
     
    Well, whatever he emphasizes and whoever he's married to, he's certainly a 'racialist', like the fella @58. Otherwise, why would he even care about the measurement broken down by the dimension of so-called 'races'. And once you start comparing 'races', inevitably you'll find the superior and inferior ones among them. What you're probably saying is that he isn't a vulgar racist...

    and many them simply can’t control their sexual impulses and have kids before build a comfortable economic stability
     
    That's quite an assumption, to believe that young-age births are explained by the inability to control sexual impulses, rather than by socioeconomic conditions, the culture produced by them. Suppose we kidnapped Chelsea Clinton at her birth and placed her into a hillbilly family. Would she be able to control her impulses?
    , @alan2102
    Santoculto:


    You are generalizing

     

    Yes, of course I am. That's what all of us do, almost all of the time. We do it because it is a very useful and indispensable technique.


    Regular right wing people believe in the hard working and meritocracy

     

    Not really. They SAY they do. But they are almost invariably in the "born on third and think they hit a triple" group. There might be rare exceptions, but so what? What I say is generally true, and that's good enough. In discussions with right-wingers I note that there is a complete absence of any awareness of the empirical work on social mobility and "meritocracy" -- which clearly shows that the idea of meritocracy is largely rubbish. It is simply one of their cherished myths -- one of the comfortable and comforting lies that they tell themselves. They must tell themselves such lies because the truth would be far too painful for them to face.


    explain me the existence of super-rich leftist celebrities**

     

    There are no super-rich leftists. That is a contradiction in terms. Some rich celebrities support one or other pet "progressive" cause, but that does not make them leftists. Money perverts people and turns them into right-wing assholes, in nearly 100% of cases. There might be rare exceptions, but so what? What I say is generally true, and that is good enough. Leonardo DeCaprio is "concerned" about climate change, while he flies his private jet around the world. Fuck him. He is a right-wing asshole, barely different from the Koch brothers. You cannot atone for your right-wing assholery by a few pious statements of "concern", or even by writing big checks to the relevant NGOs. Sorry.


    En masse immigration to the european countries blaming current living white people for all sins is fair* or just revenge*

     

    What is important is the CAUSE if massive immigration. It was caused by right-wing assholes, pursuing policies that destroyed economies and cultures such that immigration to the West/North is the only route to a better life. You'll note I said it was "caused by right-wing assholes", NOT that it was caused by "current living white people". It so happens that most of said right-wing assholes ARE white, but that is not important. As far as the currently living generation is concerned, that's largely incidental. They could just as easily be black, or any other color. Or they could be women. Margaret Thatcher, Hillary Clinton, Condi Rice, and many others -- all right-wing assholes. Your IDENTITY as a black, a latino, a woman, etc., does not atone for your right-wing assholery, either.


    I agree that in the recent past western societies was not good for many people namely in the ”minorities’ but also for, maybe, majority of people who wasn’t white/OR jewish, OR/rich and powerful.

     

    Indeed. Life sucked for most white people, too. Poor and working-class whites had it bad. White slavery was a real and terrible thing. Do not mistake what I am saying as a buy-in to the racial reductionistic narrative that locates the blame for everything on whites. That's not the case, and is not at all what I believe. White supremacy has been responsible for a ton of atrocities and outrages, but it is not responsible for everything, not even close.


    Right wing have A LOT OF good points. They are just like soldier sentinels.... [they] detect dangers, specially foreign dangers

     

    True. If you're in a survival situation, you had best have some of those reptilian qualities. But then, 99.9% of us live, 99.9% of the time, in situations where those qualities are at best useless, and at worst destructive.


    Most reasonable people whatever their ideological positions believe that corrupt ones must be jailed

     

    The issue is not whether or not you believe that "corrupt ones must be jailed", because of course EVERYONE believes that. The issue is WHAT YOU CAN SEE; specifically, what corruption and criminality you are capable of seeing. Most people, for example, do not see that the prison-industrial complex is a gigantic immoral and criminal enterprise that should be dismantled immediately. Most people do not see this because they are in the grip of a right-wing mass media and right-wing education, and are deluged with right-wing propaganda day in and day out, with almost never any serious critique.


    Charles Murray is not racist firstly because he married a non-white non-Jewish woman

     

    Irrelevant. Instances of retail interpersonal non-bigotry are quite cheap and count for little. The real action is in the ideas that you propagate, the institutions you support, the ways you obtain and spend money. You cannot atone for your right-wing assholery by marrying a non-white, especially an asian, or by having a few non-white friends, especially asians. I know that right-wing assholes would LOVE to believe otherwise, and I'm sorry to disappoint them.
  60. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @alan2102
    "Positing a biological/genetic component of intelligence must be stopped at all costs, according to the left. Why? Because if it is true, then the left’s entire narrative of universal equality falls apart."

    No, what must be stopped is the ugly racial supremacism and classism that associates with -- and always has associated with, sometimes in most egregious forms (e.g. Nazi eugenics) -- genetic determinism. Arthur de Gobineau, H S Chamberlain, Madison Grant, Lothrop Stoddard, the Nazi racial "scientists", and a whole slew of others, too many to name; it is a long, loathsome and at times overtly criminal history. Ideas associated with genetic determinism, and energized by genetic determinism, have been responsible for hundreds of millions killed, maimed, tortured, enslaved, immiserated, etc.

    THAT is what the left objects to, and what every decent human being objects to. Thank God the left has so objected, and been largely successful. Thanks to the left and political correctness, we now live in a much more decent world, in some respects, than we did 50 years ago or 100 years ago. For example, you cannot now lynch blacks, and you can't let loose your inner bigot and yell "nigger!" at a black person anymore, whereas 60 years ago you could. That is progress, for which we owe the left. Much more progress is needed, and we are still living in a racist society, but at least we've come that far. Thank God.

    The right was of course useless, never lifting a finger to police itself, much less participate in the march of human progress. And why is that? Because ugly bigotry and viciousness reflects what the right IS, constitutionally. The right is retarded, reptilian. Their consciousness is monopolized by regressive, philogenetically archaic impulses -- dominance hierarchies, primitive territorialism, and of course racism (just one facet of their retarded natures). Or to put it bluntly: they're assholes, just barely fit for human civilization, and that is being charitable. You can take right-wingers out of the jungle, but you can't take the jungle out of right-wingers.

    I have no trouble with the idea that intelligence (as defined by psychometricians) exists and has perhaps some modest genetic component. That idea, itself, is no big deal. What IS a big deal is the associations, and the way in which reactionaries and closet fascists wish to use that idea to justify and advance gross social injustice, wild disparities of wealth and income (utterly unrelated to merit), wild disparities in access to health care, a wildly racist criminal and penal "justice" system, and general viciousness and cruelty. And make no mistake: that IS what this IQ thing is really about. Armies of racist troglodytes, neo-nazis, and miscellaneous right-wing assholes LOVE the idea that blacks can be proven inferior to whites by way of IQ tests. That idea does wonders for their reactionary, anti-human agenda. They are anxious to roll-back the last century of human progress, and the racial IQ story is a golden gift to them. Again, THAT is what the left objects to -- and for god damn good reason.

    As for the "left's narrative of universal equality", do you mean the strange, unjustifiable idea that society should seek fairness and opportunity for all? Almighty God, Forbid It!

    So even if you secretly believed
    - base IQ was primarily genetic (possibly downgraded by factors like lead and iodine)
    and (mostly) the result of
    - many genes of small effect
    which would lead to the possibility that
    - different populations could have different frequencies of those genes
    then you’d want to deny it anyway for political/moral reasons – which is okay.

    However assuming that secretly you do believe it’s genetic and there are differences in the average between various groups then by denying it you’d be effectively sentencing dumb people to be dumb forever with no solutions to the problems caused by their dumbness.

    If the HBD case is true then the only way to fix it is by changing the gene frequencies.

    This could be done without publicly accepting racial differences – just admitting that intelligence is partly genetic would change people’s mating behavior.

    Say mating decisions were brains vs brawn (where brawn means looks, health etc) I’d say -
    - women in the top 1/3 already weight it 60:40
    - women in the middle 1/3 maybe 50:50
    - and women in the bottom 1/3 40:60
    and by telling the truth the middle might shift to 55:45 and the bottom 1/3 to 50:50.

    This would have a huge impact on future generations, both on the ex-dumb and the people currently paying for the dumb.

    So if you secretly believed the HBD case was true then your position could still make sense politically – for example it could mean you thought you needed a large dumb underclass as a voting bank but there is no moral case for ensuring dumb people have dumb kids forever with no way out.

    Read More
    • Replies: @alan2102
    Anon:


    So even if you secretly believed....
    ...
    However assuming that secretly you do believe....
    ...
    So if you secretly believed the HBD case was true....

     

    I have no "secret beliefs". I made it PERFECTLY clear what I believe, and you cannot possibly have missed it, unless you're stupid, and I'm assuming you're not stupid. So, stop this "secretly believe" speculative bullshit and say what you have to say, whatever that may be.

    As far as remediation of low IQ is concerned, there are a bunch of options that have nothing to do with modifying gene frequencies (though gene expression would for sure be modified). The specifics of practical measures is a whole long discussion and I would rather not enter into it right now, though I have studied it in depth in years past.

    IQ probably has a genetic component, as I said in the initial post. How much of a genetic component is the question. My hunch, and I could be wrong, is: not much. But regardless, there are so many practical options for raising population IQs the world over -- there is so very much fundamental work to be done to correct the fundamental causes of poor brain development and consequent cognitive/IQ problems -- that there is no reason to directly fool with genes at all for at least a couple of generations, if even then. We have much more basic and urgent work to do.

    Some things are more important than IQ, as pointed out above by Mao Cheng Ji. What good are high IQs if they are used mostly to facilitate cheating and theft? This is an important question, but it does not justify nihilism with respect to basic fetal, infant and child care and brain development. We can and should pursue, as an axiomatic good, normal brain development, accompanied by normal IQ and cognitive development, for all children everywhere. We should engage in the fundamental work -- nutrition, health care, environmental cleanup, etc. -- that assures same. We know what to do. The science is clear enough.
  61. Agent76 says:

    March 14, 2017 Strong link between fluoridated water and ADHD, according to scientific study

    Fluoridated water and the ingestion of fluoride have now been identified as factors in the development of ADHD, according to researchers. A report on this topic was published in Environmental Health, and the study is the first of its kind to closely examine the relationship between ADHD and exposure to fluoridated water.

    http://www.naturalhealth365.com/fluoridated-water-adhd-2169.html

    January 08, 2011 Scientists uncover truth about fluoride and other water contaminants

    In the same vein, deadly carcinogens have been found in cities across the United States. Hexavalent chromium, also known as chromium-6, is a deadly carcinogen that was found in the drinking water of 31 U.S. cities.

    http://www.naturalnews.com/030948_fluoride_water.html#ixzz4TUNHsLWg

    Read More
  62. @alan2102
    "Positing a biological/genetic component of intelligence must be stopped at all costs, according to the left. Why? Because if it is true, then the left’s entire narrative of universal equality falls apart."

    No, what must be stopped is the ugly racial supremacism and classism that associates with -- and always has associated with, sometimes in most egregious forms (e.g. Nazi eugenics) -- genetic determinism. Arthur de Gobineau, H S Chamberlain, Madison Grant, Lothrop Stoddard, the Nazi racial "scientists", and a whole slew of others, too many to name; it is a long, loathsome and at times overtly criminal history. Ideas associated with genetic determinism, and energized by genetic determinism, have been responsible for hundreds of millions killed, maimed, tortured, enslaved, immiserated, etc.

    THAT is what the left objects to, and what every decent human being objects to. Thank God the left has so objected, and been largely successful. Thanks to the left and political correctness, we now live in a much more decent world, in some respects, than we did 50 years ago or 100 years ago. For example, you cannot now lynch blacks, and you can't let loose your inner bigot and yell "nigger!" at a black person anymore, whereas 60 years ago you could. That is progress, for which we owe the left. Much more progress is needed, and we are still living in a racist society, but at least we've come that far. Thank God.

    The right was of course useless, never lifting a finger to police itself, much less participate in the march of human progress. And why is that? Because ugly bigotry and viciousness reflects what the right IS, constitutionally. The right is retarded, reptilian. Their consciousness is monopolized by regressive, philogenetically archaic impulses -- dominance hierarchies, primitive territorialism, and of course racism (just one facet of their retarded natures). Or to put it bluntly: they're assholes, just barely fit for human civilization, and that is being charitable. You can take right-wingers out of the jungle, but you can't take the jungle out of right-wingers.

    I have no trouble with the idea that intelligence (as defined by psychometricians) exists and has perhaps some modest genetic component. That idea, itself, is no big deal. What IS a big deal is the associations, and the way in which reactionaries and closet fascists wish to use that idea to justify and advance gross social injustice, wild disparities of wealth and income (utterly unrelated to merit), wild disparities in access to health care, a wildly racist criminal and penal "justice" system, and general viciousness and cruelty. And make no mistake: that IS what this IQ thing is really about. Armies of racist troglodytes, neo-nazis, and miscellaneous right-wing assholes LOVE the idea that blacks can be proven inferior to whites by way of IQ tests. That idea does wonders for their reactionary, anti-human agenda. They are anxious to roll-back the last century of human progress, and the racial IQ story is a golden gift to them. Again, THAT is what the left objects to -- and for god damn good reason.

    As for the "left's narrative of universal equality", do you mean the strange, unjustifiable idea that society should seek fairness and opportunity for all? Almighty God, Forbid It!

    “No, what must be stopped is the ugly racial supremacism and classism that associates with — and always has associated with, sometimes in most egregious forms (e.g. Nazi eugenics) — genetic determinism. Arthur de Gobineau, H S Chamberlain, Madison Grant, Lothrop Stoddard, the Nazi racial “scientists”, and a whole slew of others, too many to name; it is a long, loathsome and at times overtly criminal history. Ideas associated with genetic determinism, and energized by genetic determinism, have been responsible for hundreds of millions killed, maimed, tortured, enslaved, immiserated, etc.”

    Where to begin? Your present your laughable straw men as somehow being the sum total of all racial realism. The truth is unpleasant to the left. It does not fit your childish narrative of “universal equality” so anyone that ever posited something that is not politically correct today has to be 100% wrong. First of all, there is no such thing as universal equality. If you can’t admit that, you cannot think. Give us your definition of racial supremacism and classism. I would venture that it tends toward the “Any suggestion that there is ANY difference between the races is an evil lie that MUST be outlawed because someone’s feeling might get hurt”. Race realism recognizes that their are racial differences. You cannot admit that. You will do whatever you can to suppress any truth concerning race at any cost. In fact, you deny there are any such thing as races, even though you acknowledge them when negroes can not succeed on their own. You are not interested in the truth.

    Why don’t you show us examples of the hundreds of millions killed, maimed, tortured, enslaved, immiserated, etc.? Let’s pretend the Nazis were guilty as charged. Were the Communists, Soviet, Chinese, and Cambodian “genetic determinists”? How many American Indians were there? Were the few million black slaves enslaved because of “genetic determinism” or just sold into slavery by their own people? Frankly, you can’t come up with hundreds of millions unless you assume that any inequality in the history of the world is due to “genetic determinism”. If you are correct, the years since 1964 have been essentially two generations of blacks. And yet they are even more backward today than they were in 1964. Which would mean you are wrong. Turn the mirror on yourself.

    Read More
  63. Sean says:

    A little bit probably makes you smarter, per hormesis

    But if a little bit of lead is good for you how explain why lead poisoning has been suggested to have been a cause of the fall of the Roman Empire. Simple, Romans used to improve the flavor of their wine with lead and they suffered terrible lead poisoning because the combination increases the toxicity of lead. See ‘That ethanol consumption may affect lead toxicity was first suggested in 1966 by Cramer, who reported a higher incidence of lead poisoning among occupationally exposed (i.e., battery factory) workers with higher alcohol consuption…’.

    Read More
  64. utu says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    Regular right wing people believe in the hard working and meritocracy, you have/and deserve what you plant. If you are careless farmer so it’s YOUR FAULT, primarily.

    This is their ideal, i’m not saying it’s factual or totally correct but it’s make some sense.
     

    I agree that the main purpose of the IQ stuff is to justify the existing social order, and the racist component is only a minor part of that. Only it's not because 'regular right wing people believe' in something, but because it's the purpose of the dominant ideology.

    What I don't understand (perhaps my IQ isn't high enough) is how this justification works. What is this 'meritocracy', exactly? The farmer deserves what he plants, sure, but the high-IQ swindler who bankrupts the farmer, what does he deserve? I mean, it seems quite obvious to me that in this society the clever (high-IQ) people generally use their wits to relieve the hard-working ones of the products of their labor... No?

    “The farmer deserves what he plants, sure, but the high-IQ swindler who bankrupts the farmer, what does he deserve? ”

    Swindle on account of his higher IQ deserves the fruits of his swindle. This is the amoral morality of IQers.

    Read More
  65. @Santoculto
    Most reasonable people whatever their ideological positions believe that corrupt ones must be jailed at the best, regular right wingers included.

    Right wing mindset is strongly explicitly utilitarian. This explain partially why they are on avg less prone to enjoy arts. Many them also believe because entrepreneurs are those who create jobs so they are valuable than those who don't do it. Of course we will have a diversity of this basal ideological guidelines.

    Funnily they are on avg very proletarian mind.

    No there such thing racist component at least among most of hbd types. Charles Murray is not racist firstly because he married a non-white non-Jewish woman and because he emphasize that east Asians in IQ hierarchies appear to be insufferably smarter than "whites". Yes he's more classicist even I don't demonize him because unfortunately poor people are not poor just because the rich is disproportionately evil, selfish and/or greedy but also because they/the poor tend to be less CLEVER or high profile smart street and many them simply can't control their sexual impulses and have kids before build a comfortable economic stability == the cycle of poverty. But there are a lot of good people among the poor. Unfortunately we have many bad apples promiscuously mixed/interacting with good apples among them. It's not rare we have good control, conscious and honest parents with criminal sons. Poor tend to be more like that also because bad social conditions increase the fertility of sociopathic alphas over less territorial and aggressive men.

    Many right wingers unfortunately as well happen with many left wingers tend to be more partisans than citizens and tend to "rationalize" the wealthy and sins of "their" rich. What "liberals" usually do with their favorite powerful people with the same ideological positions for example Madame Hillary Clinton in this last American election.

    Charles Murray is not racist firstly because he married a non-white non-Jewish woman and because he emphasize that east Asians in IQ hierarchies appear to be insufferably smarter than “whites”.

    Well, whatever he emphasizes and whoever he’s married to, he’s certainly a ‘racialist’, like the fella @58. Otherwise, why would he even care about the measurement broken down by the dimension of so-called ‘races’. And once you start comparing ‘races’, inevitably you’ll find the superior and inferior ones among them. What you’re probably saying is that he isn’t a vulgar racist…

    and many them simply can’t control their sexual impulses and have kids before build a comfortable economic stability

    That’s quite an assumption, to believe that young-age births are explained by the inability to control sexual impulses, rather than by socioeconomic conditions, the culture produced by them. Suppose we kidnapped Chelsea Clinton at her birth and placed her into a hillbilly family. Would she be able to control her impulses?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto

    Suppose we kidnapped Chelsea Clinton at her birth and placed her into a hillbilly family. Would she be able to control her impulses?
     
    This supositions are generally problematic. I don't know how she would act even because we are talking about non-controlled scenarios. Many things would can happen and i don't know what is her personality to infer with some safety margin how she likely would act in this hypothetical and extraordinary situation.

    But i can tell you that she is likely to act with more prudence than a avg and classical/stereotypical hillbilly person.

    In the past seems most people had kids before and build their home after but even among them there are those who were better to manage it.

    Well, among people with lower general and cognitive intelligence, smarter people also can born. It's more rare than among families with higher ''intelligence'', but still happen occasionally.

    Well, whatever he emphasizes and whoever he’s married to, he’s certainly a ‘racialist’, like the fella @58. Otherwise, why would he even care about the measurement broken down by the dimension of so-called ‘races’. And once you start comparing ‘races’, inevitably you’ll find the superior and inferior ones among them. What you’re probably saying is that he isn’t a vulgar racist…
     
    whatever criteria you may can use, you will finish to create a ranking and with yourself inside it.

    So-called races are so evident and important that liberals are those who are more concerned and repetitive about it. If races really don't exist or better, if liberals really believe in their own beliefs they at least no more would mention so-called races.

    If you don't believe in so-called human races so you're positive about globalism* For China too*
    , @Anonymous White Male
    "and many them simply can’t control their sexual impulses and have kids before build a comfortable economic stability"

    'That’s quite an assumption, to believe that young-age births are explained by the inability to control sexual impulses, rather than by socioeconomic conditions, the culture produced by them.

    By using the word "many" he is not making quite an assumption that 'young-age births' are explained by the inability...yada yada. You are trying to imply he said that ALL young-age births are the result of parents being unable to control their sexual impulses. What is it with you people? Do you just have poor reading comprehension skills or do you just like to split hairs?

    'Suppose we kidnapped Chelsea Clinton at her birth and placed her into a hillbilly family. Would she be able to control her impulses?'

    A hillbilly family would actually have been a step up for Chelsea Clinton. And since we have no way of knowing, what is your motivation for using an unknown as an example?
    , @Santoculto
    For example, your beliefs in ”races don’t exist” IS itself a manifestation of self-superiority belief even because you think people who disagree with you about it are less smarter at least in this aspect, isn’t*

    Accuse the other [specially if he is your adversary] to create a qualitative ranking as if you never do this in your life seems imprudent.

    A qualitative ranking of what you believe it's the correct answer or thinking lines is also a ranking of superiority.
  66. @alan2102
    "Positing a biological/genetic component of intelligence must be stopped at all costs, according to the left. Why? Because if it is true, then the left’s entire narrative of universal equality falls apart."

    No, what must be stopped is the ugly racial supremacism and classism that associates with -- and always has associated with, sometimes in most egregious forms (e.g. Nazi eugenics) -- genetic determinism. Arthur de Gobineau, H S Chamberlain, Madison Grant, Lothrop Stoddard, the Nazi racial "scientists", and a whole slew of others, too many to name; it is a long, loathsome and at times overtly criminal history. Ideas associated with genetic determinism, and energized by genetic determinism, have been responsible for hundreds of millions killed, maimed, tortured, enslaved, immiserated, etc.

    THAT is what the left objects to, and what every decent human being objects to. Thank God the left has so objected, and been largely successful. Thanks to the left and political correctness, we now live in a much more decent world, in some respects, than we did 50 years ago or 100 years ago. For example, you cannot now lynch blacks, and you can't let loose your inner bigot and yell "nigger!" at a black person anymore, whereas 60 years ago you could. That is progress, for which we owe the left. Much more progress is needed, and we are still living in a racist society, but at least we've come that far. Thank God.

    The right was of course useless, never lifting a finger to police itself, much less participate in the march of human progress. And why is that? Because ugly bigotry and viciousness reflects what the right IS, constitutionally. The right is retarded, reptilian. Their consciousness is monopolized by regressive, philogenetically archaic impulses -- dominance hierarchies, primitive territorialism, and of course racism (just one facet of their retarded natures). Or to put it bluntly: they're assholes, just barely fit for human civilization, and that is being charitable. You can take right-wingers out of the jungle, but you can't take the jungle out of right-wingers.

    I have no trouble with the idea that intelligence (as defined by psychometricians) exists and has perhaps some modest genetic component. That idea, itself, is no big deal. What IS a big deal is the associations, and the way in which reactionaries and closet fascists wish to use that idea to justify and advance gross social injustice, wild disparities of wealth and income (utterly unrelated to merit), wild disparities in access to health care, a wildly racist criminal and penal "justice" system, and general viciousness and cruelty. And make no mistake: that IS what this IQ thing is really about. Armies of racist troglodytes, neo-nazis, and miscellaneous right-wing assholes LOVE the idea that blacks can be proven inferior to whites by way of IQ tests. That idea does wonders for their reactionary, anti-human agenda. They are anxious to roll-back the last century of human progress, and the racial IQ story is a golden gift to them. Again, THAT is what the left objects to -- and for god damn good reason.

    As for the "left's narrative of universal equality", do you mean the strange, unjustifiable idea that society should seek fairness and opportunity for all? Almighty God, Forbid It!

    “THAT is what the left objects to, and what every decent human being objects to. Thank God the left has so objected, and been largely successful. Thanks to the left and political correctness, we now live in a much more decent world, in some respects, than we did 50 years ago or 100 years ago. For example, you cannot now lynch blacks, and you can’t let loose your inner bigot and yell “nigger!” at a black person anymore, whereas 60 years ago you could. That is progress, for which we owe the left. Much more progress is needed, and we are still living in a racist society, but at least we’ve come that far. Thank God.”

    So, the left is the representative of every decent human being, eh? How are you any different than Catholic churchmen that knew what the truth was and had no problem with burning people at the stake because it was God’s will? You’re not. You’re just another self-righteous prick that assumes the moral superiority of your religion and wishes it imposed on everyone else. Why are you right? Just because. The difference between the left and right is that the right is capable of observing the results of policy and seeing that the promise does not equal the reality. The left is not. The left will squeal that communism didn’t work because it was not done right and never have the mental capacity to examine whether it was a flawed system that could not work.

    Lynching is such a “noble” crusade for you dim bulbs. How many blacks were lynched? From 1882-1968, 4,743 lynchings occurred in the United States. Of these people that were lynched 3,446 were black. That means that over one-fourth of those lynched were Whites. Does the left even recognize this salient point? No, because only black suffering is important to your self-righteous narrative. No, people were lynched because they broke the law, not for walking while black. While this was justice outside of the legal system, so what? Who is the legal system supposed to be for? The lawyers? And try to be honest: lynching kept the black community in line. Who is keeping them in line in Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore, anywhere where there are too many blacks? No one. They do not keep their own people in line. Apparently, the slave states were right about how to make blacks at least pretend to be White.

    Oh, and “nigger”. This is just a word. I’m sorry, but for blacks and their apologists, this somehow justifies theft, rape, and murder. Do you ever see a White person get upset about being called a honky. No, you don’t. We just laugh. Remember, sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me. It looks like blacks aren’t civilized enough to realize this. You let one thing slip. You said, “Thanks to the left and political correctness, we now live in a much more decent world, in some respects, than we did 50 years ago or 100 years ago”. In SOME respects. But, not in all. The truth is that the black race is a parasite that can only glom onto a host to live a first world life. So, the White race has not benefited from their presence. And Whites constantly move to get away from black dysfunction. But, you and your ilk want to prevent that from happening because freedom of association is not important to you and you are incapable of admitting that freedom of disassociation is just as important. You can’t allow this because it shows what blacks are not capable of. But, we already see that in Africa, don’t we? Remember South Africa and Rhodesia?

    Read More
    • Replies: @alan2102

    So, the left is the representative of every decent human being, eh?

     

    No. But there is a rough correlation.

    How are you any different than Catholic churchmen that knew what the truth was and had no problem with burning people at the stake

     

    That's an easy one. I don't advocate burning people at the stake. That's how I am different. I also don't advocate a LONG list of other things which amount to the equivalent -- in terms of collective injustice, cruelty, and so on -- of burning people at the stake. I suspect that I am different from you in that regard.


    You’re just another self-righteous prick that assumes the moral superiority of your religion

     

    You're right. I assume the moral superiority of decency, fairness, justice, and the like. I am a total prick about those things. I also assume the moral superiority of kindness to children and animals, and I am a total prick about those things, too. Insufferably self-righteous.

    If only the world could be rid of busybody do-gooder leftists like me, so that we could bring back chattel slavery, prejudicial scapegoating, cruelty to animals, child labor, public torture, and ALL the wonderful stuff from the good old days!


    The left will squeal that communism didn’t work because it was not done right

     

    Communism DID work to raise hundreds of millions out of serfdom and miserable poverty, and to extend life expectancies dramatically.


    only black suffering is important to your self-righteous narrative.

     

    As I made clear up thread, white suffering is very important to me. Race and racial supremacism, while important, are secondary matters. Class is primary.

    Oh, and “nigger”. This is just a word. I’m sorry, but for blacks and their apologists, this somehow justifies theft, rape, and murder.

     

    What in the hell are you talking about?


    The truth is that the black race is a parasite that can only glom onto a host to live a first world life.

     

    Good gracious mercy me. I did not know the Stormfront crowd had arrived. But I should not be surprised. They swarm in whenever the door is opened a crack. Show me a "race realist" or "hbd" site, and I will show you a mob of rabid Nazi hangers-on. It goes with the territory.

    [SNIP the rest of "Anonymous White Male"s semi-coherent, inconsistent, largely irrelevant, racist, low-IQ rant]
  67. @alan2102
    "Positing a biological/genetic component of intelligence must be stopped at all costs, according to the left. Why? Because if it is true, then the left’s entire narrative of universal equality falls apart."

    No, what must be stopped is the ugly racial supremacism and classism that associates with -- and always has associated with, sometimes in most egregious forms (e.g. Nazi eugenics) -- genetic determinism. Arthur de Gobineau, H S Chamberlain, Madison Grant, Lothrop Stoddard, the Nazi racial "scientists", and a whole slew of others, too many to name; it is a long, loathsome and at times overtly criminal history. Ideas associated with genetic determinism, and energized by genetic determinism, have been responsible for hundreds of millions killed, maimed, tortured, enslaved, immiserated, etc.

    THAT is what the left objects to, and what every decent human being objects to. Thank God the left has so objected, and been largely successful. Thanks to the left and political correctness, we now live in a much more decent world, in some respects, than we did 50 years ago or 100 years ago. For example, you cannot now lynch blacks, and you can't let loose your inner bigot and yell "nigger!" at a black person anymore, whereas 60 years ago you could. That is progress, for which we owe the left. Much more progress is needed, and we are still living in a racist society, but at least we've come that far. Thank God.

    The right was of course useless, never lifting a finger to police itself, much less participate in the march of human progress. And why is that? Because ugly bigotry and viciousness reflects what the right IS, constitutionally. The right is retarded, reptilian. Their consciousness is monopolized by regressive, philogenetically archaic impulses -- dominance hierarchies, primitive territorialism, and of course racism (just one facet of their retarded natures). Or to put it bluntly: they're assholes, just barely fit for human civilization, and that is being charitable. You can take right-wingers out of the jungle, but you can't take the jungle out of right-wingers.

    I have no trouble with the idea that intelligence (as defined by psychometricians) exists and has perhaps some modest genetic component. That idea, itself, is no big deal. What IS a big deal is the associations, and the way in which reactionaries and closet fascists wish to use that idea to justify and advance gross social injustice, wild disparities of wealth and income (utterly unrelated to merit), wild disparities in access to health care, a wildly racist criminal and penal "justice" system, and general viciousness and cruelty. And make no mistake: that IS what this IQ thing is really about. Armies of racist troglodytes, neo-nazis, and miscellaneous right-wing assholes LOVE the idea that blacks can be proven inferior to whites by way of IQ tests. That idea does wonders for their reactionary, anti-human agenda. They are anxious to roll-back the last century of human progress, and the racial IQ story is a golden gift to them. Again, THAT is what the left objects to -- and for god damn good reason.

    As for the "left's narrative of universal equality", do you mean the strange, unjustifiable idea that society should seek fairness and opportunity for all? Almighty God, Forbid It!

    “As for the “left’s narrative of universal equality”, do you mean the strange, unjustifiable idea that society should seek fairness and opportunity for all? Almighty God, Forbid It!”

    Yes, fairness for all is unjustifiable. Why? You cannot achieve it. No society ever has or ever will. Life is not fair. Everyone except the left knows this. And you don’t really want opportunity for all. You want equal RESULTS for all. This is also impossible because, face it, people are not born equal. A few are actually physically and mentally disadvantaged. Some people are dreamers and have no grounding in reality. And some people are just lazy. Guess what? Some people are just evil, too.

    I find it amusing that when someone that calls themselves a leftist uses “God” as somehow justification for their self-righteous smugness. It is that left that has removed the concept of “God” from public discourse. But, they claim it when ever it suits their narrative. Like gay marriage. “Oh, God loves everyone!” Unfortunately, God doesn’t love everyone. Read the Bible if you disagree. Anyone, any group of people that deny a concept exists when it doesn’t support their position and then inserts it if it can has a specific name. They are called hypocrites. You are black, aren’t you?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto

    God doesn’t love everyone. Read the Bible if you disagree
     
    We are reaching a new level in this parallelized debate, ;)

    But you're right, ''leftists'' just removed the contradictions in the bible to foment their system of beliefs, ;)
    , @alan2102
    Anonymous White Male:


    “As for the “left’s narrative of universal equality”, do you mean the strange, unjustifiable idea that society should seek fairness and opportunity for all? Almighty God, Forbid It!”

    Yes, fairness for all is unjustifiable. Why? You cannot achieve it.

     

    I said nothing about achieving it. I said society "should SEEK fairness". I write precisely what I mean. All you have to do is read.

    True that abstract values like fairness can never be achieved. But that's fine. Abstractions are abstractions; they serve their purpose of inspiring, motivating, energizing. That's good enough. It is enough to SEEK. We SEEK beauty, and justice, and other abstract things. We are transformed for the better in the seeking, coming closer to our ideal, but never achieving it. That is OK. It is enough to SEEK.

    If decent human beings have any say, society will SEEK fairness, and in the process, will improve itself as it moves toward greater fairness.

    Your protestations -- "life is not fair!", "no society ever has or ever will" -- are technically correct, but miss the point and are therefore rubbish.


    you don’t really want opportunity for all. You want equal RESULTS for all.

     

    No I don't. I love diversity of outcome. Equal (or as close as we can reasonably get to equal) opportunity, and wild diversity of outcome, including great diversity of income and wealth. Like, say, some people FIVE TIMES as rich as others. Maybe even TEN TIMES. WILD, WILD DIVERSITY. That's my thing.

    You're just lashing out ignorantly and mouthing stale right-wing talking points because... because... well, I don't know! Because it feels good? Because it makes your dick hard? I really don't know.
  68. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Anonymous White Male
    The argument against IQ is primarily because it shows that blacks are genetically less intelligent than Whites. This goes against the "we're all the same!" philosophy of irrational liberalism. We're all the same....even if we need "diversity". Positing a biological/genetic component of intelligence must be stopped at all costs, according to the left. Why? Because if it is true, then the left's entire narrative of universal equality falls apart. And most researchers now admit there is a definite genetic component, even if it is not 100% of intelligence and even if we don't know all the genes associated with such a nebulous concept.

    IQ measures something. This is obvious because of all the correlations between certain behaviors and IQ. Does it measure intelligence? You have to define intelligence first. Do we even have a universal definition of what intelligence is? Apparently not.

    The argument against IQ is primarily because it shows that blacks are genetically less intelligent than Whites. This goes against the “we’re all the same!” philosophy of irrational liberalism.

    Nonsense. If IQ tests results show racial differences in IQ, so be it. What IQ test do not measure is human potential in all domains and indeed can totally fail in identifying genius, as the Terman study proved and as the cases of Nobel Prize winners such as J.D. Watson and Richard Feynman prove.

    However, what IQ tests can do is give people who are good at certain types of petty puzzle a sense of entitlement because of their superior intelligence — a sense of entitlement liable to minimize the inclination to hard work, while giving others to understand that because of their supposed lack of potential they might as well not bother trying to succeed at anything other than being a surf.

    In addition, IQ testing seems to give those supposedly knowledgeable on the subject an insufferable sense of power and superiority.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    I don't think IQ tests ''do it'', but that stupid people in the higher IQ-layers who don't understand intelligence and no have curiosity no intellectual discipline to learn better about it.
    , @CanSpeccy
    I really meant "serf," not "surf," although if you have a low IQ, I guess joining Kary Mullis down the beach might be as good a way to pass the time as any. Mullis, incidentally, is a Nobel Prize winner generally considered to be insane, although I suppose being insane is not quite the same as having a low IQ.
    , @Anonymous White Male
    "Nonsense. If IQ tests results show racial differences in IQ, so be it. What IQ test do not measure is human potential in all domains and indeed can totally fail in identifying genius, as the Terman study proved and as the cases of Nobel Prize winners such as J.D. Watson and Richard Feynman prove."

    Well, IQ test results do show racial differences in IQ. So, so be it. And NO ONE here or ANYWHERE said anything about IQ tests measuring human potential in all domains. Why do you people need to create straw men? If you wish to talk about human potential, don't get into a thread debating IQ test results. And while IQ tests may not have measured "genius" correctly in the TWO whole examples you mention, what does this have to do with statistics? Why do you feel the need to point to the specific when a generalization is being made and then point to a generalization when a specific point is made? Don't do it again!

    "However, what IQ tests can do is give people who are good at certain types of petty puzzle a sense of entitlement because of their superior intelligence — a sense of entitlement liable to minimize the inclination to hard work, while giving others to understand that because of their supposed lack of potential they might as well not bother trying to succeed at anything other than being a surf."

    So, according to you, doing well on IQ tests makes a person tend to coast, while doing poorly on an IQ test does the same thing. I'm getting the feeling that you have not scored very well on IQ tests. I mean, with your comment about IQ tests only resulting in a high score among those who are good at "certain types of PETTY puzzles". Sounds like sour grapes. We'll never know, will we?

    "In addition, IQ testing seems to give those supposedly knowledgeable on the subject an insufferable sense of power and superiority."

    Well, does it give people, like yourself, that are supposedly unknowledgeable on the subject a sad inferiority complex? Are you black, by any chance?
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Do most children know their snd their classmates IQ scores? No. But they sll know who is quickest to put his hand up and get the right answer, who knows the meaning of the difficult words and finishes the msth test first with no or few mistakes. So why doesn't the idle IQ 145 kid in 1000 inspire the 10 IQ 135 contemporaries to work hard when they know that ovcasionally ny hard work they can beat him? Of course neither the good nor the bad depends upon any of thrm knowing their IQ scores. But surely the IQ score comes into its own as one important prompt to schools to make sure their 3, 4, 5, 6 sigma kids are not bored to distraction and delinquency.
  69. @Mao Cheng Ji

    Charles Murray is not racist firstly because he married a non-white non-Jewish woman and because he emphasize that east Asians in IQ hierarchies appear to be insufferably smarter than “whites”.
     
    Well, whatever he emphasizes and whoever he's married to, he's certainly a 'racialist', like the fella @58. Otherwise, why would he even care about the measurement broken down by the dimension of so-called 'races'. And once you start comparing 'races', inevitably you'll find the superior and inferior ones among them. What you're probably saying is that he isn't a vulgar racist...

    and many them simply can’t control their sexual impulses and have kids before build a comfortable economic stability
     
    That's quite an assumption, to believe that young-age births are explained by the inability to control sexual impulses, rather than by socioeconomic conditions, the culture produced by them. Suppose we kidnapped Chelsea Clinton at her birth and placed her into a hillbilly family. Would she be able to control her impulses?

    Suppose we kidnapped Chelsea Clinton at her birth and placed her into a hillbilly family. Would she be able to control her impulses?

    This supositions are generally problematic. I don’t know how she would act even because we are talking about non-controlled scenarios. Many things would can happen and i don’t know what is her personality to infer with some safety margin how she likely would act in this hypothetical and extraordinary situation.

    But i can tell you that she is likely to act with more prudence than a avg and classical/stereotypical hillbilly person.

    In the past seems most people had kids before and build their home after but even among them there are those who were better to manage it.

    Well, among people with lower general and cognitive intelligence, smarter people also can born. It’s more rare than among families with higher ”intelligence”, but still happen occasionally.

    Well, whatever he emphasizes and whoever he’s married to, he’s certainly a ‘racialist’, like the fella @58. Otherwise, why would he even care about the measurement broken down by the dimension of so-called ‘races’. And once you start comparing ‘races’, inevitably you’ll find the superior and inferior ones among them. What you’re probably saying is that he isn’t a vulgar racist…

    whatever criteria you may can use, you will finish to create a ranking and with yourself inside it.

    So-called races are so evident and important that liberals are those who are more concerned and repetitive about it. If races really don’t exist or better, if liberals really believe in their own beliefs they at least no more would mention so-called races.

    If you don’t believe in so-called human races so you’re positive about globalism* For China too*

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

    So-called races are so evident and important that liberals are those who are more concerned and repetitive about it.
     
    Yes, liberals are very much into 'races'; it's one of their favorite identities.

    I disagree that 'races' are evident: there are different definitions, borderlines are very much blurred already, and likely to become more and more blurred in the future, until this particular classification will stop making sense completely.

    I also disagree that it is important (essential). A very similar characteristic was customary essentialized not so long ago: hereditary nobility, hereditary royalty. It seemed extremely important only 200 years ago, and yet it's almost completely gone now, and hardly anyone is bothered by its disappearance...
  70. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    Regular right wing people believe in the hard working and meritocracy, you have/and deserve what you plant. If you are careless farmer so it’s YOUR FAULT, primarily.

    This is their ideal, i’m not saying it’s factual or totally correct but it’s make some sense.
     

    I agree that the main purpose of the IQ stuff is to justify the existing social order, and the racist component is only a minor part of that. Only it's not because 'regular right wing people believe' in something, but because it's the purpose of the dominant ideology.

    What I don't understand (perhaps my IQ isn't high enough) is how this justification works. What is this 'meritocracy', exactly? The farmer deserves what he plants, sure, but the high-IQ swindler who bankrupts the farmer, what does he deserve? I mean, it seems quite obvious to me that in this society the clever (high-IQ) people generally use their wits to relieve the hard-working ones of the products of their labor... No?

    The farmer deserves what he plants, sure

    Oh no. Not in an IQ-ocracy.

    Working hard and expecting to reap what one sows, whether it be a sack of rice or a Nobel Prize is so Confucian. Indeed it is just taking advantage of one’s more intelligent neighbor who is undoubtedly thinking very fine thoughts and deserves the best of whatever life has to offer, whether it be an education at Harvard or a place on the company board.

    Read More
  71. @CanSpeccy

    The argument against IQ is primarily because it shows that blacks are genetically less intelligent than Whites. This goes against the “we’re all the same!” philosophy of irrational liberalism.
     
    Nonsense. If IQ tests results show racial differences in IQ, so be it. What IQ test do not measure is human potential in all domains and indeed can totally fail in identifying genius, as the Terman study proved and as the cases of Nobel Prize winners such as J.D. Watson and Richard Feynman prove.

    However, what IQ tests can do is give people who are good at certain types of petty puzzle a sense of entitlement because of their superior intelligence — a sense of entitlement liable to minimize the inclination to hard work, while giving others to understand that because of their supposed lack of potential they might as well not bother trying to succeed at anything other than being a surf.

    In addition, IQ testing seems to give those supposedly knowledgeable on the subject an insufferable sense of power and superiority.

    I don’t think IQ tests ”do it”, but that stupid people in the higher IQ-layers who don’t understand intelligence and no have curiosity no intellectual discipline to learn better about it.

    Read More
  72. @Mao Cheng Ji

    Charles Murray is not racist firstly because he married a non-white non-Jewish woman and because he emphasize that east Asians in IQ hierarchies appear to be insufferably smarter than “whites”.
     
    Well, whatever he emphasizes and whoever he's married to, he's certainly a 'racialist', like the fella @58. Otherwise, why would he even care about the measurement broken down by the dimension of so-called 'races'. And once you start comparing 'races', inevitably you'll find the superior and inferior ones among them. What you're probably saying is that he isn't a vulgar racist...

    and many them simply can’t control their sexual impulses and have kids before build a comfortable economic stability
     
    That's quite an assumption, to believe that young-age births are explained by the inability to control sexual impulses, rather than by socioeconomic conditions, the culture produced by them. Suppose we kidnapped Chelsea Clinton at her birth and placed her into a hillbilly family. Would she be able to control her impulses?

    “and many them simply can’t control their sexual impulses and have kids before build a comfortable economic stability”

    ‘That’s quite an assumption, to believe that young-age births are explained by the inability to control sexual impulses, rather than by socioeconomic conditions, the culture produced by them.

    By using the word “many” he is not making quite an assumption that ‘young-age births’ are explained by the inability…yada yada. You are trying to imply he said that ALL young-age births are the result of parents being unable to control their sexual impulses. What is it with you people? Do you just have poor reading comprehension skills or do you just like to split hairs?

    ‘Suppose we kidnapped Chelsea Clinton at her birth and placed her into a hillbilly family. Would she be able to control her impulses?’

    A hillbilly family would actually have been a step up for Chelsea Clinton. And since we have no way of knowing, what is your motivation for using an unknown as an example?

    Read More
  73. @Mao Cheng Ji

    Charles Murray is not racist firstly because he married a non-white non-Jewish woman and because he emphasize that east Asians in IQ hierarchies appear to be insufferably smarter than “whites”.
     
    Well, whatever he emphasizes and whoever he's married to, he's certainly a 'racialist', like the fella @58. Otherwise, why would he even care about the measurement broken down by the dimension of so-called 'races'. And once you start comparing 'races', inevitably you'll find the superior and inferior ones among them. What you're probably saying is that he isn't a vulgar racist...

    and many them simply can’t control their sexual impulses and have kids before build a comfortable economic stability
     
    That's quite an assumption, to believe that young-age births are explained by the inability to control sexual impulses, rather than by socioeconomic conditions, the culture produced by them. Suppose we kidnapped Chelsea Clinton at her birth and placed her into a hillbilly family. Would she be able to control her impulses?

    For example, your beliefs in ”races don’t exist” IS itself a manifestation of self-superiority belief even because you think people who disagree with you about it are less smarter at least in this aspect, isn’t*

    Accuse the other [specially if he is your adversary] to create a qualitative ranking as if you never do this in your life seems imprudent.

    A qualitative ranking of what you believe it’s the correct answer or thinking lines is also a ranking of superiority.

    Read More
  74. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @CanSpeccy

    The argument against IQ is primarily because it shows that blacks are genetically less intelligent than Whites. This goes against the “we’re all the same!” philosophy of irrational liberalism.
     
    Nonsense. If IQ tests results show racial differences in IQ, so be it. What IQ test do not measure is human potential in all domains and indeed can totally fail in identifying genius, as the Terman study proved and as the cases of Nobel Prize winners such as J.D. Watson and Richard Feynman prove.

    However, what IQ tests can do is give people who are good at certain types of petty puzzle a sense of entitlement because of their superior intelligence — a sense of entitlement liable to minimize the inclination to hard work, while giving others to understand that because of their supposed lack of potential they might as well not bother trying to succeed at anything other than being a surf.

    In addition, IQ testing seems to give those supposedly knowledgeable on the subject an insufferable sense of power and superiority.

    I really meant “serf,” not “surf,” although if you have a low IQ, I guess joining Kary Mullis down the beach might be as good a way to pass the time as any. Mullis, incidentally, is a Nobel Prize winner generally considered to be insane, although I suppose being insane is not quite the same as having a low IQ.

    Read More
  75. Mokiki says:

    See An Element of Doubt
    Disinterested research casts doubt on claims that lead poisoning from paint is widespread among American children. Ironically, lead-paint removal can be a cause of poisoning

    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1995/12/an-element-of-doubt/376495/

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    Lead poisoning from the gas additive tetraethyl lead, which was banned in the US in 1984, has been a major cause of lead poisoning apparently. The effects may be wearing off a bit by now although soil contamination from auto emissions is still a cause elevated blood lead concentrations in some places.

    In New Y ork City, ingestion of lead by those residing near major highways is believed to be responsible for an elevated incidence of a form of the disease known as porphyria, which may have been the cause of King George's insanity.

    , @Johan Meyer
    I've not yet gotten to the comment to which you are replying, but I read the article to which you linked. It mentions that blood lead level is correlated to soil lead, which suggests continuous poisoning. I've argued elsewhere (comment 8) that sporadic poisoning leads to blood lead levels that are not correlated well to poisoning. NHANES III distribution of BLL suggests paint is sporadic poisoning. A better proxy for sporadic poisoning is bone, as lead in the bone has a half life of 30 years, and can be measured by K edge subtraction radiography.
  76. @Anonymous White Male
    "As for the “left’s narrative of universal equality”, do you mean the strange, unjustifiable idea that society should seek fairness and opportunity for all? Almighty God, Forbid It!"

    Yes, fairness for all is unjustifiable. Why? You cannot achieve it. No society ever has or ever will. Life is not fair. Everyone except the left knows this. And you don't really want opportunity for all. You want equal RESULTS for all. This is also impossible because, face it, people are not born equal. A few are actually physically and mentally disadvantaged. Some people are dreamers and have no grounding in reality. And some people are just lazy. Guess what? Some people are just evil, too.

    I find it amusing that when someone that calls themselves a leftist uses "God" as somehow justification for their self-righteous smugness. It is that left that has removed the concept of "God" from public discourse. But, they claim it when ever it suits their narrative. Like gay marriage. "Oh, God loves everyone!" Unfortunately, God doesn't love everyone. Read the Bible if you disagree. Anyone, any group of people that deny a concept exists when it doesn't support their position and then inserts it if it can has a specific name. They are called hypocrites. You are black, aren't you?

    God doesn’t love everyone. Read the Bible if you disagree

    We are reaching a new level in this parallelized debate, ;)

    But you’re right, ”leftists” just removed the contradictions in the bible to foment their system of beliefs, ;)

    Read More
  77. AP says:
    @alan2102
    "It seems to me that anyone with IQ above 60 should understand that ‘intelligence’, by almost any definition, can not indeed be measured by a single number."

    Ha. Yes. But the psychometricians are desperate to claim otherwise; emotionally and intellectually, they are totally invested in that idea; "all in", so to say.

    “It seems to me that anyone with IQ above 60 should understand that ‘intelligence’, by almost any definition, can not indeed be measured by a single number.”

    Ha. Yes. But the psychometricians are desperate to claim otherwise;

    No they aren’t, and they don’t.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    No they aren’t, and they don’t.
     
    Well in that case, the better to be understood, they might make a point of stating more often and more clearly exactly what it is that IQ measures, i.e., aptitude on a few numerical, verbal and pattern-matching tests, which may or may not have much to do with relative capacity in many functions of either the intellect or the central nervous system, or in life-time achievement.
  78. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Mokiki
    See An Element of Doubt
    Disinterested research casts doubt on claims that lead poisoning from paint is widespread among American children. Ironically, lead-paint removal can be a cause of poisoning

    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1995/12/an-element-of-doubt/376495/

    Lead poisoning from the gas additive tetraethyl lead, which was banned in the US in 1984, has been a major cause of lead poisoning apparently. The effects may be wearing off a bit by now although soil contamination from auto emissions is still a cause elevated blood lead concentrations in some places.

    In New Y ork City, ingestion of lead by those residing near major highways is believed to be responsible for an elevated incidence of a form of the disease known as porphyria, which may have been the cause of King George’s insanity.

    Read More
  79. @CanSpeccy
    Who doubts the existence of intelligence? .... Exactly. No one.

    What any rational observer of humanity is bound to reject is the notion that a unidimensional scale, IQ for example, provides a valid measure of ability in all intellectual domains. At best, such a test can provide a mean ranking in several domains.

    Moreover, the idea that a comprehensive assessment of individual genius is possible with a test based on a few numerical, verbal, and shape-matching puzzles reveals an amazing blindness to the range of human aptitude -- a conclusion that is not refuted by the existence of factors, either genetic or environmental, that have a general effect on mental function.

    Who believes in that “comprehensive assessment”?

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    Who believes in that “comprehensive assessment”?
     
    IQists, surely?

    Certainly they rarely state any limitation on the implication of IQ. It's supposed, according to them, to measure a young person's prospects of getting a PhD, a patent, a tenured professorship, success in business, and by implication so much more, or so James Thompson would have us believe.

    Thing is, though, while reference is often made to the success of those who were found in youth to have high IQ's, less, indeed much less if anything at all, is said about those who though having been found to have not such high IQs in youth nevertheless went on to success as Nobel Prize winners, Professors, business executives, etc.

  80. @The Z Blog
    This is a pretty good example of what psychology calls projection. This form of "argument" is common with the creationists and ID'ers.

    What is your “this”? What you are replying to or what he was replying to/criticising?

    Read More
  81. @Mao Cheng Ji

    There are still many people who believe that intelligence does not exist or that it cannot be measured, particularly if the summary result is given as a single figure.
     
    These are two very different propositions, you know. It seems to me that anyone with IQ above 60 should understand that 'intelligence', by almost any definition, can not indeed be measured by a single number.

    Consider what you are replying to. JT has merely affirmed that sometimes (quite often in fact) the results of tests of intelligence are “summarised” in a single figure. The appropriate question is as to whether the summary figure has any legitimate utility or evidentiary value.

    But maybe you are teasing the solemn. You have after all used the single figure of 60 to pretend to make your point. You seem to be adopting my (soft) thresholds point.

    Read More
  82. @alan2102
    "It seems to me that anyone with IQ above 60 should understand that ‘intelligence’, by almost any definition, can not indeed be measured by a single number."

    Ha. Yes. But the psychometricians are desperate to claim otherwise; emotionally and intellectually, they are totally invested in that idea; "all in", so to say.

    “Anyone with an IQ above [not 60 but let's say an alert and educated 110] should understand that” Mao Cheng Ji may be engaged in teasing irony. See #82

    Read More
  83. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Wizard of Oz
    Who believes in that "comprehensive assessment"?

    Who believes in that “comprehensive assessment”?

    IQists, surely?

    Certainly they rarely state any limitation on the implication of IQ. It’s supposed, according to them, to measure a young person’s prospects of getting a PhD, a patent, a tenured professorship, success in business, and by implication so much more, or so James Thompson would have us believe.

    Thing is, though, while reference is often made to the success of those who were found in youth to have high IQ’s, less, indeed much less if anything at all, is said about those who though having been found to have not such high IQs in youth nevertheless went on to success as Nobel Prize winners, Professors, business executives, etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Do you believe if IQ tests start to measure/predict creative and rational ''skills'' it will become more comprehensive*
    , @utu
    " while reference is often made to the success of those who were found in youth to have high IQ’s, less, indeed much less if anything at all, is said about those who though having been found to have not such high IQs in youth nevertheless went on to success "


    And not much is made of those who have high IQ but their only life success is a membership in MENSA.
  84. pyrrhus says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    There are still many people who believe that intelligence does not exist or that it cannot be measured, particularly if the summary result is given as a single figure.
     
    These are two very different propositions, you know. It seems to me that anyone with IQ above 60 should understand that 'intelligence', by almost any definition, can not indeed be measured by a single number.

    But the fact that IQ doesn’t measure every ability doesn’t mean that the ‘single number’ doesn’t have a lot of significance.

    Read More
  85. @anon

    Mr. Kirkegaard stated, that there had not been any “environmental” ways to boost IQ found yet, only “environmental” causes which depressed IQ, e.g., he gave the example of lead poisoning; but as I understand it, iodine has been found and confirmed to be a quite significant “environmental” factor in boosting IQ, and it is also relatively easy and cost-effective to do so. Am I wrong?
     
    He may have meant that iodine doesn't increase IQ above its natural (i.e. genetic) potential.

    Iodine deficiency dramatically lowers IQ and adding iodine i.e. removing the deficiency, lets it reach its natural limit but (if genetic IQ is true) it doesn't increase IQ above its genetic limit - only gene frequency can do that.

    Hence all the current programs to reduce iodine deficiency in Africa and the earlier programs in the western countries starting from the 1920s to add iodine to table salt (or to cattle feed in the milk drinking anglo countries).

    http://www.sightandlife.org/fileadmin/data/Magazine/2013/27_3_2013/iodine_nutrition_in_africa.pdf

    The iodine thing, along with the increased consumption of fish in the developing world, is a possible candidate for the Flynn effect.

    Thanks to adding to my battery of explanations for the Flynn effect. Mine include test sophistication, radio programs which required focus and attention (not least the comedies), antibiotics, anti-inflammatories etc

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    you're welcome.

    it's been known for decades that iodine deficiency lowers IQ so anything that adds to or reduces a deficiency will effect people.

    and that is not just adding iodine itself (where deficient) e.g. more fish, but also other factors which may reduce the positive effect of iodine e.g. bromide, chloride, fluoride, lead(?).
  86. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @AP

    “It seems to me that anyone with IQ above 60 should understand that ‘intelligence’, by almost any definition, can not indeed be measured by a single number.”

    Ha. Yes. But the psychometricians are desperate to claim otherwise;
     
    No they aren't, and they don't.

    No they aren’t, and they don’t.

    Well in that case, the better to be understood, they might make a point of stating more often and more clearly exactly what it is that IQ measures, i.e., aptitude on a few numerical, verbal and pattern-matching tests, which may or may not have much to do with relative capacity in many functions of either the intellect or the central nervous system, or in life-time achievement.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    What you say now isn't the same as what I responded to.
    , @alan2102
    CanSpeccy:


    Certainly they [the IQ-ists] rarely state any limitation on the implication of IQ. It’s supposed, according to them, to measure a young person’s prospects of getting a PhD, a patent, a tenured professorship, success in business, and by implication so much more, or so James Thompson would have us believe.

     

    That's right. Stating the limitations would -- apart from being honest -- diminish their status and the perceived import of their work. They imagine themselves to be working on THE psychological matter that largely determines life outcomes, and it is VERY important to them that others believe the same. The mythos must be supported, whether or not it corresponds to reality. Typical "professionals". It is like that in most fields.


    Thing is, though, while reference is often made to the success of those who were found in youth to have high IQ’s, less, indeed much less if anything at all, is said about those who though having been found to have not such high IQs in youth nevertheless went on to success as Nobel Prize winners, Professors, business executives, etc.

     

    Is that so? I did not know. Which is a reflection of how well the IQ-obsessed (the IQ-ists, the psychometricians) have done their brainwashing work. I'm not dumb, and I've read a fair amount of the IQ-related stuff, and I was not aware of what you just said. Whereas, if the field were honest and forthright, it would impossible for me (or anyone) to get far without encountering that fact. Ah, well. Typical "professionals". It is like that in most fields. Corruption and lying is the norm.


    they [the IQ-ists] might make a point of stating more often and more clearly exactly what it is that IQ measures, i.e., aptitude on a few numerical, verbal and pattern-matching tests, which may or may not have much to do with relative capacity in many functions of either the intellect or the central nervous system, or in life-time achievement.

     

    Yes, indeed they might! Except that telling the truth in that manner would have the effect of undermining their status, and with that, possibly, their influence, and even their salaries. So, instead of plain honest truth-telling, they inflate. It is NOT just "aptitude on a few pattern-matching tests", it is GENERAL intelligence, they say, with the clear implications of "universal" and "applicable and crucial in all situations" and even "that on which SUCCESS IN LIFE depends"!

    I don't think I've ever heard an idea more arrogant and presumptuous and self-important (on the part of those advancing it) than "GENERAL intelligence". And, to top it off, the reality of what they are actually talking about is that it is SPECIFIC intelligence -- quite specific to certain types of problems. There's nothing wrong with it, of course, and other things equal it is surely an advantage to have more rather than less of that specific ability. But jeezuz. "General" intelligence, my ass!
    , @anon

    what it is that IQ measures
     
    brain health?

    (at least the many genes of small effect)

    (i suspect any large effect genes with negative side effects would more likely be the result of a selective niche)
  87. @CanSpeccy

    Who believes in that “comprehensive assessment”?
     
    IQists, surely?

    Certainly they rarely state any limitation on the implication of IQ. It's supposed, according to them, to measure a young person's prospects of getting a PhD, a patent, a tenured professorship, success in business, and by implication so much more, or so James Thompson would have us believe.

    Thing is, though, while reference is often made to the success of those who were found in youth to have high IQ's, less, indeed much less if anything at all, is said about those who though having been found to have not such high IQs in youth nevertheless went on to success as Nobel Prize winners, Professors, business executives, etc.

    Do you believe if IQ tests start to measure/predict creative and rational ”skills” it will become more comprehensive*

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    Do you believe if IQ tests start to measure/predict creative and rational ”skills” it will become more comprehensive
     
    There are two limitations with IQ tests. First, they measure not innate ability, but innate ability modified by experience, experience including education which may be lacking altogether, modest, intense or extreme (Mozart for example, whose father abandoned his own career to educate his children). You cannot do number tests without having been taught to be numerate, you cannot do verbal tests without having been taught to be literate, and standards of education vary immensely even at the elementary level. So what your test measures will never be pure innate ability.

    Second, IQ tests are based on implicit assumptions about the nature of human intelligence, or at least the intelligence that the test is supposed to measure. Mostly, intelligence tests have been devised either to see whether potential army recruits can understand and rationally act upon instructions such as "this way up" or "keep away from an open flame", etc., or whether prospective school entrants will be able to handle the curriculum.

    In some degree, IQ tests undoubtedly serve such purposes, although perhaps no better than other kinds of tests, e.g., relevant academic tests for school entrants. But certainly they do not measure innate ability unmodified by experience. Further, they measure no more than a narrow range of what constitutes intelligence if, by intelligence, we mean the adaptive function of the central nervous system, a function that is manifest in a vast range of capabilities.

    Such misrepresentation of what an IQ test measures results in absurdities such as in the case of a musical genius such as Derek Paravicini, who can identify by ear each of ten notes struck on the piano keyboard simultaneously, and like Mozart can memorize the Papal mass at a single hearing, but who yet has an IQ of less than 35.

    While most would probably consider intelligence as something displayed only in the intellectual sphere, to a biologist the distinction between intellectual functions of the brain and all its other functions seems entirely artificial. The brain is an organ that aids survival and reproduction. Intellectual functions may serve those ends, but so do many other functions of the brain. Kinesthetic aptitude, for example, serves at least as importantly in assuring survival and reproduction as any intellectual capacity. And, boy, doesn't that girl Simone Biles give you goose bumps? — her gymnastic performance is sheer genius.

    Or what about Bill Clinton and his claimed 2000 conquests! The power and versatility of the human brain is amazing and it cannot be captured in any comprehensive way by some simple paper and pencil test however ingenious.
  88. alan2102 says:
    @Santoculto
    Most reasonable people whatever their ideological positions believe that corrupt ones must be jailed at the best, regular right wingers included.

    Right wing mindset is strongly explicitly utilitarian. This explain partially why they are on avg less prone to enjoy arts. Many them also believe because entrepreneurs are those who create jobs so they are valuable than those who don't do it. Of course we will have a diversity of this basal ideological guidelines.

    Funnily they are on avg very proletarian mind.

    No there such thing racist component at least among most of hbd types. Charles Murray is not racist firstly because he married a non-white non-Jewish woman and because he emphasize that east Asians in IQ hierarchies appear to be insufferably smarter than "whites". Yes he's more classicist even I don't demonize him because unfortunately poor people are not poor just because the rich is disproportionately evil, selfish and/or greedy but also because they/the poor tend to be less CLEVER or high profile smart street and many them simply can't control their sexual impulses and have kids before build a comfortable economic stability == the cycle of poverty. But there are a lot of good people among the poor. Unfortunately we have many bad apples promiscuously mixed/interacting with good apples among them. It's not rare we have good control, conscious and honest parents with criminal sons. Poor tend to be more like that also because bad social conditions increase the fertility of sociopathic alphas over less territorial and aggressive men.

    Many right wingers unfortunately as well happen with many left wingers tend to be more partisans than citizens and tend to "rationalize" the wealthy and sins of "their" rich. What "liberals" usually do with their favorite powerful people with the same ideological positions for example Madame Hillary Clinton in this last American election.

    Santoculto:

    You are generalizing

    Yes, of course I am. That’s what all of us do, almost all of the time. We do it because it is a very useful and indispensable technique.

    Regular right wing people believe in the hard working and meritocracy

    Not really. They SAY they do. But they are almost invariably in the “born on third and think they hit a triple” group. There might be rare exceptions, but so what? What I say is generally true, and that’s good enough. In discussions with right-wingers I note that there is a complete absence of any awareness of the empirical work on social mobility and “meritocracy” — which clearly shows that the idea of meritocracy is largely rubbish. It is simply one of their cherished myths — one of the comfortable and comforting lies that they tell themselves. They must tell themselves such lies because the truth would be far too painful for them to face.

    explain me the existence of super-rich leftist celebrities**

    There are no super-rich leftists. That is a contradiction in terms. Some rich celebrities support one or other pet “progressive” cause, but that does not make them leftists. Money perverts people and turns them into right-wing assholes, in nearly 100% of cases. There might be rare exceptions, but so what? What I say is generally true, and that is good enough. Leonardo DeCaprio is “concerned” about climate change, while he flies his private jet around the world. Fuck him. He is a right-wing asshole, barely different from the Koch brothers. You cannot atone for your right-wing assholery by a few pious statements of “concern”, or even by writing big checks to the relevant NGOs. Sorry.

    En masse immigration to the european countries blaming current living white people for all sins is fair* or just revenge*

    What is important is the CAUSE if massive immigration. It was caused by right-wing assholes, pursuing policies that destroyed economies and cultures such that immigration to the West/North is the only route to a better life. You’ll note I said it was “caused by right-wing assholes”, NOT that it was caused by “current living white people”. It so happens that most of said right-wing assholes ARE white, but that is not important. As far as the currently living generation is concerned, that’s largely incidental. They could just as easily be black, or any other color. Or they could be women. Margaret Thatcher, Hillary Clinton, Condi Rice, and many others — all right-wing assholes. Your IDENTITY as a black, a latino, a woman, etc., does not atone for your right-wing assholery, either.

    I agree that in the recent past western societies was not good for many people namely in the ”minorities’ but also for, maybe, majority of people who wasn’t white/OR jewish, OR/rich and powerful.

    Indeed. Life sucked for most white people, too. Poor and working-class whites had it bad. White slavery was a real and terrible thing. Do not mistake what I am saying as a buy-in to the racial reductionistic narrative that locates the blame for everything on whites. That’s not the case, and is not at all what I believe. White supremacy has been responsible for a ton of atrocities and outrages, but it is not responsible for everything, not even close.

    Right wing have A LOT OF good points. They are just like soldier sentinels…. [they] detect dangers, specially foreign dangers

    True. If you’re in a survival situation, you had best have some of those reptilian qualities. But then, 99.9% of us live, 99.9% of the time, in situations where those qualities are at best useless, and at worst destructive.

    Most reasonable people whatever their ideological positions believe that corrupt ones must be jailed

    The issue is not whether or not you believe that “corrupt ones must be jailed”, because of course EVERYONE believes that. The issue is WHAT YOU CAN SEE; specifically, what corruption and criminality you are capable of seeing. Most people, for example, do not see that the prison-industrial complex is a gigantic immoral and criminal enterprise that should be dismantled immediately. Most people do not see this because they are in the grip of a right-wing mass media and right-wing education, and are deluged with right-wing propaganda day in and day out, with almost never any serious critique.

    Charles Murray is not racist firstly because he married a non-white non-Jewish woman

    Irrelevant. Instances of retail interpersonal non-bigotry are quite cheap and count for little. The real action is in the ideas that you propagate, the institutions you support, the ways you obtain and spend money. You cannot atone for your right-wing assholery by marrying a non-white, especially an asian, or by having a few non-white friends, especially asians. I know that right-wing assholes would LOVE to believe otherwise, and I’m sorry to disappoint them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto

    Yes, of course I am. That’s what all of us do, almost all of the time. We do it because it is a very useful and indispensable technique.
     
    Specially when it's against your enemy isn't* ;)

    Yes, we tend to generalize a lot, BUT it's smart stop to do it, at least, after to have good reasons to do it.

    Not really. They SAY they do. But they are almost invariably in the “born on third and think they hit a triple” group. There might be rare exceptions, but so what? What I say is generally true, and that’s good enough. In discussions with right-wingers I note that there is a complete absence of any awareness of the empirical work on social mobility and “meritocracy” — which clearly shows that the idea of meritocracy is largely rubbish. It is simply one of their cherished myths — one of the comfortable and comforting lies that they tell themselves. They must tell themselves such lies because the truth would be far too painful for them to face.
     
    So you're basing yourself on your discussions with rightists?

    There are different types of rightists, i still think you can't simply generalize them as if they were all the same.

    What i said.

    You deserve what you plant.

    If you're clever enough to become super rich using the flaws or even the windows of the system so you deserve it.

    Rightism is mostly about self-responsibility. This explain why they tend to be nasty with ''loser'' people, for example, with homeless people.

    [New] Leftism is mostly about responsibility of governors over the governed [at its surface, for sure, ;) ].

    Most rightist people, seems, are very hard working [believe in it at the point to engage themselves] and they work expecting be rewarded [they are more competitive, believe in meritocracy].

    There are no super-rich leftists. That is a contradiction in terms. Some rich celebrities support one or other pet “progressive” cause, but that does not make them leftists.
     
    Hillary is other example of fake leftist*

    Money perverts people and turns them into right-wing assholes, in nearly 100% of cases.
     
    OK.

    right is 100% evil,
    left is 100% good.

    There might be rare exceptions, but so what? What I say is generally true, and that is good enough. Leonardo DeCaprio is “concerned” about climate change, while he flies his private jet around the world. Fuck him. He is a right-wing asshole, barely different from the Koch brothers. You cannot atone for your right-wing assholery by a few pious statements of “concern”, or even by writing big checks to the relevant NGOs. Sorry.

    I think the terms ''right'' and ''left wing'', even they have their validations, are old fashioned, evem because a lot of people ''on the right'' and ''on the left'' have more similarities than differences. The bigger confront is between vitalists and materialists.

    Materialistic people enphasizes ''material goods'' over ''vital/life goods'', aka, humans or living beings. Money, a big house, a big and sophisticated car, are more important for them than other lifes.

    Vitalistic people enphasizes ''vital goods'' over ''material goods'', and they are obviously right because we are talking about a inanimate objects and real living beings.

    Maybe you're right that most of this celebrities and politicians {most of them} who are super rich are not truly ''left wingers'', concerned about social justice, but why most of leftists don't think like you*
    , @Santoculto

    What is important is the CAUSE if massive immigration. It was caused by right-wing assholes, pursuing policies that destroyed economies and cultures such that immigration to the West/North is the only route to a better life. You’ll note I said it was “caused by right-wing assholes”, NOT that it was caused by “current living white people”. It so happens that most of said right-wing assholes ARE white, but that is not important. As far as the currently living generation is concerned, that’s largely incidental. They could just as easily be black, or any other color. Or they could be women. Margaret Thatcher, Hillary Clinton, Condi Rice, and many others — all right-wing assholes. Your IDENTITY as a black, a latino, a woman, etc., does not atone for your right-wing assholery, either.
     
    Yes, but

    - policy of open borders (left wing);

    - ''brainwashing'' the new generations of theory of nonexistence of human races ((left wing));

    - white guilty ''brainwashing'' (((left wing)))

    just this examples, happened a lot to this very problematic situation in the west.

    So almost of this people who advocate for white racism, multiculturalism and nonexistence of human races are indeed right wing assholes**
    , @Santoculto

    Indeed. Life sucked for most white people, too. Poor and working-class whites had it bad. White slavery was a real and terrible thing. Do not mistake what I am saying as a buy-in to the racial reductionistic narrative that locates the blame for everything on whites. That’s not the case, and is not at all what I believe. White supremacy has been responsible for a ton of atrocities and outrages, but it is not responsible for everything, not even close.
     
    I know about working classe whites. How english workers were [ab]used specially during the first and second period of industrial revolution. I mostly agree in this part.

    I believe there are tons of superiority, equivalence and inferiority about everything in the world, even between races, even this scenarios can change completely and now who is the predator can become the prey, but i think when you recognize important superior aspect of yourself in comparison to other people, you don't legimitate you to do what you want with this people.

    True. If you’re in a survival situation, you had best have some of those reptilian qualities. But then, 99.9% of us live, 99.9% of the time, in situations where those qualities are at best useless, and at worst destructive.
     
    I think to the castle be safe enough for us don't worry about our own survive, sentinels are extremely important to protect us/the castle.

    Unfortunately the same predator detector skills that remain ''the castle'' safe tend to make sentinels more insensitive about other important issues.

    The issue is not whether or not you believe that “corrupt ones must be jailed”, because of course EVERYONE believes that. The issue is WHAT YOU CAN SEE; specifically, what corruption and criminality you are capable of seeing. Most people, for example, do not see that the prison-industrial complex is a gigantic immoral and criminal enterprise that should be dismantled immediately. Most people do not see this because they are in the grip of a right-wing mass media and right-wing education, and are deluged with right-wing propaganda day in and day out, with almost never any serious critique.
     
    Why prison-industrial complex must be dismantled**

    Do you believe most of prisoners are innocent*
    , @Santoculto

    Irrelevant. Instances of retail interpersonal non-bigotry are quite cheap and count for little. The real action is in the ideas that you propagate, the institutions you support, the ways you obtain and spend money. You cannot atone for your right-wing assholery by marrying a non-white, especially an asian, or by having a few non-white friends, especially asians. I know that right-wing assholes would LOVE to believe otherwise, and I’m sorry to disappoint them.
     
    Even he is a ''right wing asshole'' i don't think their works about jewish-east asian-white-black IQ and socio-economic outcomes discrepancies exactly a pseudo-science, what do you think about it*
  89. @CanSpeccy

    The argument against IQ is primarily because it shows that blacks are genetically less intelligent than Whites. This goes against the “we’re all the same!” philosophy of irrational liberalism.
     
    Nonsense. If IQ tests results show racial differences in IQ, so be it. What IQ test do not measure is human potential in all domains and indeed can totally fail in identifying genius, as the Terman study proved and as the cases of Nobel Prize winners such as J.D. Watson and Richard Feynman prove.

    However, what IQ tests can do is give people who are good at certain types of petty puzzle a sense of entitlement because of their superior intelligence — a sense of entitlement liable to minimize the inclination to hard work, while giving others to understand that because of their supposed lack of potential they might as well not bother trying to succeed at anything other than being a surf.

    In addition, IQ testing seems to give those supposedly knowledgeable on the subject an insufferable sense of power and superiority.

    “Nonsense. If IQ tests results show racial differences in IQ, so be it. What IQ test do not measure is human potential in all domains and indeed can totally fail in identifying genius, as the Terman study proved and as the cases of Nobel Prize winners such as J.D. Watson and Richard Feynman prove.”

    Well, IQ test results do show racial differences in IQ. So, so be it. And NO ONE here or ANYWHERE said anything about IQ tests measuring human potential in all domains. Why do you people need to create straw men? If you wish to talk about human potential, don’t get into a thread debating IQ test results. And while IQ tests may not have measured “genius” correctly in the TWO whole examples you mention, what does this have to do with statistics? Why do you feel the need to point to the specific when a generalization is being made and then point to a generalization when a specific point is made? Don’t do it again!

    “However, what IQ tests can do is give people who are good at certain types of petty puzzle a sense of entitlement because of their superior intelligence — a sense of entitlement liable to minimize the inclination to hard work, while giving others to understand that because of their supposed lack of potential they might as well not bother trying to succeed at anything other than being a surf.”

    So, according to you, doing well on IQ tests makes a person tend to coast, while doing poorly on an IQ test does the same thing. I’m getting the feeling that you have not scored very well on IQ tests. I mean, with your comment about IQ tests only resulting in a high score among those who are good at “certain types of PETTY puzzles”. Sounds like sour grapes. We’ll never know, will we?

    “In addition, IQ testing seems to give those supposedly knowledgeable on the subject an insufferable sense of power and superiority.”

    Well, does it give people, like yourself, that are supposedly unknowledgeable on the subject a sad inferiority complex? Are you black, by any chance?

    Read More
    • Replies: @alan2102
    Anonymous White Male:

    And NO ONE here or ANYWHERE said anything about IQ tests measuring human potential in all domains.
     
    That's what the phrase "general intelligence" does: it implies human potential in all domains. Does not quite state it, so there is plausible deniability (just barely), but strongly implies it.

    Reflect for a while on that phrase: GENERAL intelligence. What does it mean to you? What do you think it was intended to mean? What do you think its creators wished it to evoke within you?
  90. utu says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Who believes in that “comprehensive assessment”?
     
    IQists, surely?

    Certainly they rarely state any limitation on the implication of IQ. It's supposed, according to them, to measure a young person's prospects of getting a PhD, a patent, a tenured professorship, success in business, and by implication so much more, or so James Thompson would have us believe.

    Thing is, though, while reference is often made to the success of those who were found in youth to have high IQ's, less, indeed much less if anything at all, is said about those who though having been found to have not such high IQs in youth nevertheless went on to success as Nobel Prize winners, Professors, business executives, etc.

    ” while reference is often made to the success of those who were found in youth to have high IQ’s, less, indeed much less if anything at all, is said about those who though having been found to have not such high IQs in youth nevertheless went on to success ”

    And not much is made of those who have high IQ but their only life success is a membership in MENSA.

    Read More
  91. AP says:
    @CanSpeccy

    No they aren’t, and they don’t.
     
    Well in that case, the better to be understood, they might make a point of stating more often and more clearly exactly what it is that IQ measures, i.e., aptitude on a few numerical, verbal and pattern-matching tests, which may or may not have much to do with relative capacity in many functions of either the intellect or the central nervous system, or in life-time achievement.

    What you say now isn’t the same as what I responded to.

    Read More
  92. alan2102 says:
    @CanSpeccy

    No they aren’t, and they don’t.
     
    Well in that case, the better to be understood, they might make a point of stating more often and more clearly exactly what it is that IQ measures, i.e., aptitude on a few numerical, verbal and pattern-matching tests, which may or may not have much to do with relative capacity in many functions of either the intellect or the central nervous system, or in life-time achievement.

    CanSpeccy:

    Certainly they [the IQ-ists] rarely state any limitation on the implication of IQ. It’s supposed, according to them, to measure a young person’s prospects of getting a PhD, a patent, a tenured professorship, success in business, and by implication so much more, or so James Thompson would have us believe.

    That’s right. Stating the limitations would — apart from being honest — diminish their status and the perceived import of their work. They imagine themselves to be working on THE psychological matter that largely determines life outcomes, and it is VERY important to them that others believe the same. The mythos must be supported, whether or not it corresponds to reality. Typical “professionals”. It is like that in most fields.

    Thing is, though, while reference is often made to the success of those who were found in youth to have high IQ’s, less, indeed much less if anything at all, is said about those who though having been found to have not such high IQs in youth nevertheless went on to success as Nobel Prize winners, Professors, business executives, etc.

    Is that so? I did not know. Which is a reflection of how well the IQ-obsessed (the IQ-ists, the psychometricians) have done their brainwashing work. I’m not dumb, and I’ve read a fair amount of the IQ-related stuff, and I was not aware of what you just said. Whereas, if the field were honest and forthright, it would impossible for me (or anyone) to get far without encountering that fact. Ah, well. Typical “professionals”. It is like that in most fields. Corruption and lying is the norm.

    they [the IQ-ists] might make a point of stating more often and more clearly exactly what it is that IQ measures, i.e., aptitude on a few numerical, verbal and pattern-matching tests, which may or may not have much to do with relative capacity in many functions of either the intellect or the central nervous system, or in life-time achievement.

    Yes, indeed they might! Except that telling the truth in that manner would have the effect of undermining their status, and with that, possibly, their influence, and even their salaries. So, instead of plain honest truth-telling, they inflate. It is NOT just “aptitude on a few pattern-matching tests”, it is GENERAL intelligence, they say, with the clear implications of “universal” and “applicable and crucial in all situations” and even “that on which SUCCESS IN LIFE depends”!

    I don’t think I’ve ever heard an idea more arrogant and presumptuous and self-important (on the part of those advancing it) than “GENERAL intelligence”. And, to top it off, the reality of what they are actually talking about is that it is SPECIFIC intelligence — quite specific to certain types of problems. There’s nothing wrong with it, of course, and other things equal it is surely an advantage to have more rather than less of that specific ability. But jeezuz. “General” intelligence, my ass!

    Read More
  93. alan2102 says:
    @Anonymous White Male
    "Nonsense. If IQ tests results show racial differences in IQ, so be it. What IQ test do not measure is human potential in all domains and indeed can totally fail in identifying genius, as the Terman study proved and as the cases of Nobel Prize winners such as J.D. Watson and Richard Feynman prove."

    Well, IQ test results do show racial differences in IQ. So, so be it. And NO ONE here or ANYWHERE said anything about IQ tests measuring human potential in all domains. Why do you people need to create straw men? If you wish to talk about human potential, don't get into a thread debating IQ test results. And while IQ tests may not have measured "genius" correctly in the TWO whole examples you mention, what does this have to do with statistics? Why do you feel the need to point to the specific when a generalization is being made and then point to a generalization when a specific point is made? Don't do it again!

    "However, what IQ tests can do is give people who are good at certain types of petty puzzle a sense of entitlement because of their superior intelligence — a sense of entitlement liable to minimize the inclination to hard work, while giving others to understand that because of their supposed lack of potential they might as well not bother trying to succeed at anything other than being a surf."

    So, according to you, doing well on IQ tests makes a person tend to coast, while doing poorly on an IQ test does the same thing. I'm getting the feeling that you have not scored very well on IQ tests. I mean, with your comment about IQ tests only resulting in a high score among those who are good at "certain types of PETTY puzzles". Sounds like sour grapes. We'll never know, will we?

    "In addition, IQ testing seems to give those supposedly knowledgeable on the subject an insufferable sense of power and superiority."

    Well, does it give people, like yourself, that are supposedly unknowledgeable on the subject a sad inferiority complex? Are you black, by any chance?

    Anonymous White Male:

    And NO ONE here or ANYWHERE said anything about IQ tests measuring human potential in all domains.

    That’s what the phrase “general intelligence” does: it implies human potential in all domains. Does not quite state it, so there is plausible deniability (just barely), but strongly implies it.

    Reflect for a while on that phrase: GENERAL intelligence. What does it mean to you? What do you think it was intended to mean? What do you think its creators wished it to evoke within you?

    Read More
  94. @CanSpeccy

    The argument against IQ is primarily because it shows that blacks are genetically less intelligent than Whites. This goes against the “we’re all the same!” philosophy of irrational liberalism.
     
    Nonsense. If IQ tests results show racial differences in IQ, so be it. What IQ test do not measure is human potential in all domains and indeed can totally fail in identifying genius, as the Terman study proved and as the cases of Nobel Prize winners such as J.D. Watson and Richard Feynman prove.

    However, what IQ tests can do is give people who are good at certain types of petty puzzle a sense of entitlement because of their superior intelligence — a sense of entitlement liable to minimize the inclination to hard work, while giving others to understand that because of their supposed lack of potential they might as well not bother trying to succeed at anything other than being a surf.

    In addition, IQ testing seems to give those supposedly knowledgeable on the subject an insufferable sense of power and superiority.

    Do most children know their snd their classmates IQ scores? No. But they sll know who is quickest to put his hand up and get the right answer, who knows the meaning of the difficult words and finishes the msth test first with no or few mistakes. So why doesn’t the idle IQ 145 kid in 1000 inspire the 10 IQ 135 contemporaries to work hard when they know that ovcasionally ny hard work they can beat him? Of course neither the good nor the bad depends upon any of thrm knowing their IQ scores. But surely the IQ score comes into its own as one important prompt to schools to make sure their 3, 4, 5, 6 sigma kids are not bored to distraction and delinquency.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    But surely the IQ score comes into its own as one important prompt to schools to make sure their 3, 4, 5, 6 sigma kids are not bored to distraction and delinquency.
     
    The teaching business is incredibly conservative. The business of making children advance in lockstep with 30 others in their class for 12 years, guarantees that education is vastly less effective than it might be.

    Ideally, each child should be taught at their own pace and should advance through the grades as they achieve adequate mastery at each level, not because they have put in the time at a particular level. And with technology, teaching at the individual's own pace is surely now feasible, but educationalists are too dumb, it seems, to bring about the radical changes needed.

    As for the interaction of children of different abilities, it must be remembered that children do not all advance at the same pace. The fact that girls mature earlier than boys seems like a good reason for single sex education. And within any class of boys or girls there will be some that mature years earlier than others. Slow developers will suffer in the early going but developing late they will develop longer. So again, we cannot have the most effective education without adjusting the pace to the individual. At the end of each stage, we should be able to say not who is best at math or spelling but that everyone has achieved full proficiency, even if some never get beyond grade six or eight after 12 years of schooling.

    As it is, not only does the present system make school seem dull to the brightest kids but it makes school seem humiliating to the slowest kids, which is why as I recall, much of school was a dead loss, except for anything in a lab, or stuff with numbers. But oh God, French ... Latin... English grammar...
  95. alan2102 says:
    @Anonymous White Male
    "As for the “left’s narrative of universal equality”, do you mean the strange, unjustifiable idea that society should seek fairness and opportunity for all? Almighty God, Forbid It!"

    Yes, fairness for all is unjustifiable. Why? You cannot achieve it. No society ever has or ever will. Life is not fair. Everyone except the left knows this. And you don't really want opportunity for all. You want equal RESULTS for all. This is also impossible because, face it, people are not born equal. A few are actually physically and mentally disadvantaged. Some people are dreamers and have no grounding in reality. And some people are just lazy. Guess what? Some people are just evil, too.

    I find it amusing that when someone that calls themselves a leftist uses "God" as somehow justification for their self-righteous smugness. It is that left that has removed the concept of "God" from public discourse. But, they claim it when ever it suits their narrative. Like gay marriage. "Oh, God loves everyone!" Unfortunately, God doesn't love everyone. Read the Bible if you disagree. Anyone, any group of people that deny a concept exists when it doesn't support their position and then inserts it if it can has a specific name. They are called hypocrites. You are black, aren't you?

    Anonymous White Male:

    “As for the “left’s narrative of universal equality”, do you mean the strange, unjustifiable idea that society should seek fairness and opportunity for all? Almighty God, Forbid It!”

    Yes, fairness for all is unjustifiable. Why? You cannot achieve it.

    I said nothing about achieving it. I said society “should SEEK fairness”. I write precisely what I mean. All you have to do is read.

    True that abstract values like fairness can never be achieved. But that’s fine. Abstractions are abstractions; they serve their purpose of inspiring, motivating, energizing. That’s good enough. It is enough to SEEK. We SEEK beauty, and justice, and other abstract things. We are transformed for the better in the seeking, coming closer to our ideal, but never achieving it. That is OK. It is enough to SEEK.

    If decent human beings have any say, society will SEEK fairness, and in the process, will improve itself as it moves toward greater fairness.

    Your protestations — “life is not fair!”, “no society ever has or ever will” — are technically correct, but miss the point and are therefore rubbish.

    you don’t really want opportunity for all. You want equal RESULTS for all.

    No I don’t. I love diversity of outcome. Equal (or as close as we can reasonably get to equal) opportunity, and wild diversity of outcome, including great diversity of income and wealth. Like, say, some people FIVE TIMES as rich as others. Maybe even TEN TIMES. WILD, WILD DIVERSITY. That’s my thing.

    You’re just lashing out ignorantly and mouthing stale right-wing talking points because… because… well, I don’t know! Because it feels good? Because it makes your dick hard? I really don’t know.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous White Male
    "For example, you cannot now lynch blacks, and you can’t let loose your inner bigot and yell “nigger!” at a black person anymore, whereas 60 years ago you could."

    This is what I was speaking of, dim bulb. You don't remember typing this? I guess you can't make the appropriate connections in your argument. Not surprising. Your argument consists of regurgitating feelings and somehow believing that wasting everyone's time running around with your head cut off accomplishes anything except alienating half or more of the population. The things you stand for were rejected in the last election. I'm not implying that elections are anything other than bread and circuses. I am saying that the productive people of the world are sick of trying to pursue your goals, which have ZERO percent chance of being realized. And this is the difference between thinking and feeling people. Thinking people know that utopia cannot be achieved and you don't get extra points from the universe for believing that just clapping will bring back Tinkerbell. We see that society should function as smoothly as possible. It should "work". Nations should not waste time an effort fixing something that can't be fixed. Something that can't be fixed is not a problem. It is fools like yourself that make it a never ending problem, one that requires more and more money spent on something that will never disappear. Let's look at the following statement:

    "That’s what the phrase “general intelligence” does: it implies human potential in all domains. Does not quite state it, so there is plausible deniability (just barely), but strongly implies it."

    So, general intelligence implies human potential in all domains? Obviously you need to make this statement because of the fact that it doesn't. The definition of "general intelligence", also known as g factor, refers to the existence of a broad mental capacity that influences performance on cognitive ability measures. Nothing about human potential. You made the connection because you cannot argue about IQ based on the facts, so you have to bring in your childish attempt to discredit it. Can't have IQ or g factor showing that negroes are not as well equipped.

    Look, I can deal with your lies, misrepresentations, childish feelings, ad hominems, and non-existent logic on a point-by-point basis. But, it takes up space on the server and serves no real purpose. You are beyond reason. You exist in a make believe universe with no natural laws, just changeable feelings. Everything you believe is based on lies and false assumptions. You don't even realize that every time a government takes on a "problem" that only your ilk sees as a problem, they don't do it because they are well meaning. They do it because it forces the productive people of a nation to borrow money into existence to take care of this insolvable problem. And once started, it will never be stopped because the problem can't be solved. You are a fool and delusional. You are a slave and you want everyone to be a slave, not a successful person.

    Oh, and you never answered. Are you black? I find blacks and women get the angriest about IQ discussions because deep down, they know intelligence is real and some people and races have more.
  96. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Santoculto
    Do you believe if IQ tests start to measure/predict creative and rational ''skills'' it will become more comprehensive*

    Do you believe if IQ tests start to measure/predict creative and rational ”skills” it will become more comprehensive

    There are two limitations with IQ tests. First, they measure not innate ability, but innate ability modified by experience, experience including education which may be lacking altogether, modest, intense or extreme (Mozart for example, whose father abandoned his own career to educate his children). You cannot do number tests without having been taught to be numerate, you cannot do verbal tests without having been taught to be literate, and standards of education vary immensely even at the elementary level. So what your test measures will never be pure innate ability.

    Second, IQ tests are based on implicit assumptions about the nature of human intelligence, or at least the intelligence that the test is supposed to measure. Mostly, intelligence tests have been devised either to see whether potential army recruits can understand and rationally act upon instructions such as “this way up” or “keep away from an open flame”, etc., or whether prospective school entrants will be able to handle the curriculum.

    In some degree, IQ tests undoubtedly serve such purposes, although perhaps no better than other kinds of tests, e.g., relevant academic tests for school entrants. But certainly they do not measure innate ability unmodified by experience. Further, they measure no more than a narrow range of what constitutes intelligence if, by intelligence, we mean the adaptive function of the central nervous system, a function that is manifest in a vast range of capabilities.

    Such misrepresentation of what an IQ test measures results in absurdities such as in the case of a musical genius such as Derek Paravicini, who can identify by ear each of ten notes struck on the piano keyboard simultaneously, and like Mozart can memorize the Papal mass at a single hearing, but who yet has an IQ of less than 35.

    While most would probably consider intelligence as something displayed only in the intellectual sphere, to a biologist the distinction between intellectual functions of the brain and all its other functions seems entirely artificial. The brain is an organ that aids survival and reproduction. Intellectual functions may serve those ends, but so do many other functions of the brain. Kinesthetic aptitude, for example, serves at least as importantly in assuring survival and reproduction as any intellectual capacity. And, boy, doesn’t that girl Simone Biles give you goose bumps? — her gymnastic performance is sheer genius.

    Or what about Bill Clinton and his claimed 2000 conquests! The power and versatility of the human brain is amazing and it cannot be captured in any comprehensive way by some simple paper and pencil test however ingenious.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johan Meyer
    IQ is well correlated with ability in multiple fields, especially from median IQ down (many tasks are so-called g-loaded). Your counter-example is a case of savantism, an exception that accounts for a small portion of the population.
    , @Santoculto

    There are two limitations with IQ tests. First, they measure not innate ability, but innate ability modified by experience, experience including education which may be lacking altogether, modest, intense or extreme (Mozart for example, whose father abandoned his own career to educate his children). You cannot do number tests without having been taught to be numerate, you cannot do verbal tests without having been taught to be literate, and standards of education vary immensely even at the elementary level. So what your test measures will never be pure innate ability.
     
    In my opinion the most severe flaws of IQ TESTS is

    - no have context. To be smart or smarter in real world we must have real scenarios, the real world to be/act like that;

    - IQ don't ''measure'' psychological aspects, because intelligence IS the combination of cognitive and psychological features.

    I don't believe Mozart would not become a genius fundamentally because your father because he already had the touch of innate originality inside him. It was a partnership, without Mozart genius the dedication of your father is likely would be infertile. Yes in terms of creative achievement the world is not this linear and expected chain of events what many people believe, namely for those who are more independent or at least original to think but when this people find a place to specialize they tend to go deeply into this area.

    I ask how would be the scores of highly creative achievers aka geniuses in divergent thinking tests.

    IQ don't measure creative achievement so i think your example of Mozart don't make sense here.

    Yes, to score higher in IQ tests namely in verbal tests [arythmetic and verbal] we must need to be exposed to this respective knowledges, learn a language, be literate and numerate. But i still believe that in normal situations IQ is good to measure what it measure. good enough to express more than just a single number.

    But even if we have hypothetical situation: a ''feral'' person [Tarzan] without numeracy and literacy and compared with a average-intelligence person with numeracy and literacy, i think the feral person, when she is exposed to the human cultural knowledge, she will learn faster, but specially, she's likely will be more perceptive and intelectually curious than the average-intelligence person. We are talking about genotypical intelligence, strongly associated with pattern recognition skills.

    I don't believe education is magical to improve or to decrease innate intelligence, specially before correct literacy and numeracy. It's personality traits and yes, innate cognitive abilities, now associated with literacy and numeracy that will mediate the scholastic performance.
    , @Santoculto
    ''Second, IQ tests are based on implicit assumptions about the nature of human intelligence, or at least the intelligence that the test is supposed to measure. Mostly, intelligence tests have been devised either to see whether potential army recruits can understand and rationally act upon instructions such as “this way up” or “keep away from an open flame”, etc., or whether prospective school entrants will be able to handle the curriculum.''

    I agree. IQ tests are also based on what their creators believe it's the ''intelligent thing'' to ask and to answer. Even with all this limitations, IQ in my opinion is reasonably good enough to measure cognitive aspects of intelligence. Not everything, but it's something.

    In my case for example. I know in terms of ''general cognitive intelligence'' i will score above average [Greenwich 100] but not above 120. General is just the perimeter of intelligence. If i'm compared with many people i know in this general and cognitive aspect i will be above-average. I can visualize it very well.

    In some degree, IQ tests undoubtedly serve such purposes, although perhaps no better than other kinds of tests, e.g., relevant academic tests for school entrants. But certainly they do not measure innate ability unmodified by experience. Further, they measure no more than a narrow range of what constitutes intelligence if, by intelligence, we mean the adaptive function of the central nervous system, a function that is manifest in a vast range of capabilities.
     
    I think IQ measure some innate abilities but embodied by ''cultural clothes'', for example, verbal ''intelligence'' [;)]. Innate abilities or skin and literacy or ''cultural clothes''. You can deduct the shape of breast based on format he do in the clothes, specially if the clothes are thin. You can deduct ''verbal'' innate ability based on how bigger [and qualitative] it be in literacy.

    And it's the description and qualification of things that is underlying in verbal ability. ''We'' invent and use words to associate them with real things and to descript and qualify them.

    I don't think they measure a narrow, if verbal skills for example are extremely important for us, to communicate, to understand a mathematical problem, to verbalize the shape of geometric figures, etc... i think they measure the basal level of this.

    IQ is important but we must take into account psychological assessment and ''measurement'' of creativity and rationality, and never treat it as ultimate evaluation, only for some perspectives.
    , @Santoculto

    Such misrepresentation of what an IQ test measures results in absurdities such as in the case of a musical genius such as Derek Paravicini, who can identify by ear each of ten notes struck on the piano keyboard simultaneously, and like Mozart can memorize the Papal mass at a single hearing, but who yet has an IQ of less than 35.
     
    Paravicini born with Savant syndrome. A island of genius sorrounded by a ocean of deficience.

    He have or had a very unusual brain, with innate and/or natural ability to learn music at master or very professional levels at very faster way. I always think savant people are a great counterargument to the supposed and restrict necessity of the education, ;), because savant syndrome is a extremely intense and umbalanced demonstration about what also tend to happen with gifted people.

    Kinesthetic aptitude, for example, serves at least as importantly in assuring survival and reproduction as any intellectual capacity. And, boy, doesn’t that girl Simone Biles give you goose bumps? — her gymnastic performance is sheer genius.
     
    Yes, most people know that IQ don't measure athletic skills.

    One of the two most fundamental flaws of IQ i don't said in my previous comment

    IQ don't ''measure''

    character /benignity

    self knowledge


    most of this IQ-tards or IQ-diots who think they are geniuses only because their higher scores in IQ tests and... simply don't prove their self-declared geniuses lacks

    self-knowledge


    If all human beings have some of this fundamental traits just like rationality and self knowledge i doubt we still would live in this hell on Earth.

    But psychometricians specially on the right, seems, have little to nonexistent curiosity to learn more about self knowledge.

    Intrapersonal skills in my opinion is fundamental, primordial to the intelligence. If you misunderstood yourself the probabilities to be or to act in stupid ways will be higher. It's just like the domino effect.

    Or what about Bill Clinton and his claimed 2000 conquests! The power and versatility of the human brain is amazing and it cannot be captured in any comprehensive way by some simple paper and pencil test however ingenious.
     
    We are talking about sociopathy too*
  97. alan2102 says:
    @Anonymous White Male
    "THAT is what the left objects to, and what every decent human being objects to. Thank God the left has so objected, and been largely successful. Thanks to the left and political correctness, we now live in a much more decent world, in some respects, than we did 50 years ago or 100 years ago. For example, you cannot now lynch blacks, and you can’t let loose your inner bigot and yell “nigger!” at a black person anymore, whereas 60 years ago you could. That is progress, for which we owe the left. Much more progress is needed, and we are still living in a racist society, but at least we’ve come that far. Thank God."

    So, the left is the representative of every decent human being, eh? How are you any different than Catholic churchmen that knew what the truth was and had no problem with burning people at the stake because it was God's will? You're not. You're just another self-righteous prick that assumes the moral superiority of your religion and wishes it imposed on everyone else. Why are you right? Just because. The difference between the left and right is that the right is capable of observing the results of policy and seeing that the promise does not equal the reality. The left is not. The left will squeal that communism didn't work because it was not done right and never have the mental capacity to examine whether it was a flawed system that could not work.

    Lynching is such a "noble" crusade for you dim bulbs. How many blacks were lynched? From 1882-1968, 4,743 lynchings occurred in the United States. Of these people that were lynched 3,446 were black. That means that over one-fourth of those lynched were Whites. Does the left even recognize this salient point? No, because only black suffering is important to your self-righteous narrative. No, people were lynched because they broke the law, not for walking while black. While this was justice outside of the legal system, so what? Who is the legal system supposed to be for? The lawyers? And try to be honest: lynching kept the black community in line. Who is keeping them in line in Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore, anywhere where there are too many blacks? No one. They do not keep their own people in line. Apparently, the slave states were right about how to make blacks at least pretend to be White.

    Oh, and "nigger". This is just a word. I'm sorry, but for blacks and their apologists, this somehow justifies theft, rape, and murder. Do you ever see a White person get upset about being called a honky. No, you don't. We just laugh. Remember, sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me. It looks like blacks aren't civilized enough to realize this. You let one thing slip. You said, "Thanks to the left and political correctness, we now live in a much more decent world, in some respects, than we did 50 years ago or 100 years ago". In SOME respects. But, not in all. The truth is that the black race is a parasite that can only glom onto a host to live a first world life. So, the White race has not benefited from their presence. And Whites constantly move to get away from black dysfunction. But, you and your ilk want to prevent that from happening because freedom of association is not important to you and you are incapable of admitting that freedom of disassociation is just as important. You can't allow this because it shows what blacks are not capable of. But, we already see that in Africa, don't we? Remember South Africa and Rhodesia?

    So, the left is the representative of every decent human being, eh?

    No. But there is a rough correlation.

    How are you any different than Catholic churchmen that knew what the truth was and had no problem with burning people at the stake

    That’s an easy one. I don’t advocate burning people at the stake. That’s how I am different. I also don’t advocate a LONG list of other things which amount to the equivalent — in terms of collective injustice, cruelty, and so on — of burning people at the stake. I suspect that I am different from you in that regard.

    You’re just another self-righteous prick that assumes the moral superiority of your religion

    You’re right. I assume the moral superiority of decency, fairness, justice, and the like. I am a total prick about those things. I also assume the moral superiority of kindness to children and animals, and I am a total prick about those things, too. Insufferably self-righteous.

    If only the world could be rid of busybody do-gooder leftists like me, so that we could bring back chattel slavery, prejudicial scapegoating, cruelty to animals, child labor, public torture, and ALL the wonderful stuff from the good old days!

    The left will squeal that communism didn’t work because it was not done right

    Communism DID work to raise hundreds of millions out of serfdom and miserable poverty, and to extend life expectancies dramatically.

    only black suffering is important to your self-righteous narrative.

    As I made clear up thread, white suffering is very important to me. Race and racial supremacism, while important, are secondary matters. Class is primary.

    Oh, and “nigger”. This is just a word. I’m sorry, but for blacks and their apologists, this somehow justifies theft, rape, and murder.

    What in the hell are you talking about?

    The truth is that the black race is a parasite that can only glom onto a host to live a first world life.

    Good gracious mercy me. I did not know the Stormfront crowd had arrived. But I should not be surprised. They swarm in whenever the door is opened a crack. Show me a “race realist” or “hbd” site, and I will show you a mob of rabid Nazi hangers-on. It goes with the territory.

    [SNIP the rest of "Anonymous White Male"s semi-coherent, inconsistent, largely irrelevant, racist, low-IQ rant]

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous White Male
    Since you do not have the debate skills to use reasoned argument, I am just going to point out to all the others reading this what your position encompasses. You are Stan/Loretta. This sketch is a good analogy of what you "want" to believe.

    JUDITH: I do feel, Reg, that any Anti-Imperialist group like ours must reflect such a divergence of interests within its power-base.

    REG: Agreed. Francis?

    FRANCIS: Yeah. I think Judith's point of view is very valid, Reg, provided the Movement never forgets that it is the inalienable right of every man--

    STAN: Or woman.

    FRANCIS: Or woman... to rid himself--

    STAN: Or herself.

    FRANCIS: Or herself.

    REG: Agreed.

    FRANCIS: Thank you, brother.

    STAN: Or sister.

    FRANCIS: Or sister. Where was I?

    REG: I think you'd finished.

    FRANCIS: Oh. Right.

    REG: Furthermore, it is the birthright of every man--

    STAN: Or woman.

    REG: Why don't you shut up about women, Stan. You're putting us off.

    STAN: Women have a perfect right to play a part in our movement, Reg.

    FRANCIS: Why are you always on about women, Stan?

    STAN: I want to be one.

    REG: What?

    STAN: I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me 'Loretta'.

    REG: What?!

    LORETTA: It's my right as a man.

    JUDITH: Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?

    LORETTA: I want to have babies.

    REG: You want to have babies?!

    LORETTA: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.

    REG: But... you can't have babies.

    LORETTA: Don't you oppress me.

    REG: I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb! Where's the foetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!

    LORETTA: crying

    JUDITH: Here! I-- I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have babies.

    FRANCIS: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister. Sorry.

    REG: What's the point?

    FRANCIS: What?

    REG: What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can't have babies?!

    FRANCIS: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.

    REG: Symbolic of his struggle against reality.
    , @Anonymous White Male
    I'm sorry moderators. I can't resist.

    "Communism DID work to raise hundreds of millions out of serfdom and miserable poverty, and to extend life expectancies dramatically."

    The fact that you would say this shows that you are either incapable of honesty or you are an idiot. Or both. This alone disqualifies any of your posts. If you actually believe this, your entire position is one of self-deception.
  98. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Wizard of Oz
    Do most children know their snd their classmates IQ scores? No. But they sll know who is quickest to put his hand up and get the right answer, who knows the meaning of the difficult words and finishes the msth test first with no or few mistakes. So why doesn't the idle IQ 145 kid in 1000 inspire the 10 IQ 135 contemporaries to work hard when they know that ovcasionally ny hard work they can beat him? Of course neither the good nor the bad depends upon any of thrm knowing their IQ scores. But surely the IQ score comes into its own as one important prompt to schools to make sure their 3, 4, 5, 6 sigma kids are not bored to distraction and delinquency.

    But surely the IQ score comes into its own as one important prompt to schools to make sure their 3, 4, 5, 6 sigma kids are not bored to distraction and delinquency.

    The teaching business is incredibly conservative. The business of making children advance in lockstep with 30 others in their class for 12 years, guarantees that education is vastly less effective than it might be.

    Ideally, each child should be taught at their own pace and should advance through the grades as they achieve adequate mastery at each level, not because they have put in the time at a particular level. And with technology, teaching at the individual’s own pace is surely now feasible, but educationalists are too dumb, it seems, to bring about the radical changes needed.

    As for the interaction of children of different abilities, it must be remembered that children do not all advance at the same pace. The fact that girls mature earlier than boys seems like a good reason for single sex education. And within any class of boys or girls there will be some that mature years earlier than others. Slow developers will suffer in the early going but developing late they will develop longer. So again, we cannot have the most effective education without adjusting the pace to the individual. At the end of each stage, we should be able to say not who is best at math or spelling but that everyone has achieved full proficiency, even if some never get beyond grade six or eight after 12 years of schooling.

    As it is, not only does the present system make school seem dull to the brightest kids but it makes school seem humiliating to the slowest kids, which is why as I recall, much of school was a dead loss, except for anything in a lab, or stuff with numbers. But oh God, French … Latin… English grammar…

    Read More
  99. @Santoculto

    One mechanism by which parental and child exposure is correlated is the neighbourhood exposure to lead fallout from gasoline (it was not equal opportunity—some neighbourhoods had far more lead than others prior to phaseout of leaded, which happened quite recently outside North America). In the US, Black neighbourhoods often had far higher blood lead levels.
     
    Lead poisoning in rural deep south too*

    Blacks on rural areas of deep south tend to have the lowest IQ among american blacks. Interestingly they score higher in urban areas of northeast.

    With regards to blacks in the rural south, there were depression era programs to supply lead paint to rural people, e.g. blacks in Alabama. In fairness, lead paint was a status object at the time, so a comparison with Obama phones is warrantes. See “Brush with Death: A Social History of Lead Poisoning” by Christian Warren, p9.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    I think you are confusing social class with lead poisoning

    Because they tend to be poor, governments, specially in the past, with ZERO echological and social conscience, has transferred hard industries to the poor neighborhoods. So we have a association of three variables: [already existent] avg lower intelligence/lack of control impulse, black ethnicity and comparatively higher exposition to industrial toxicity.

    http://www.healthline.com/health/lead-poisoning#prevention8

    If most blacks [whatever the place they are**] are constantly presenting these symptoms, then we are actually talking about something closer to what you have advocated here.

    ''We'' must prove that

    is really happening/happened a epidemic lead poisoning;

    that lead poisoning [in higher levels of contamination] reduce intelligence [''aka'' IQ] as zika virus cause microcephaly,

    that this reduction of intelligence will persists...


    I'm born and live in place where levels of lead poisoning has been lower and still i see the same white-black-whatever discrepancies in intelligence...

    The cognitive and psychological discrepancies are not local phenomena, it's general, generalized, whatever place people are.


    I'm understanding your thinking lines, you are saying basically that ''lead poisoning is one of the responsible for lower intelligence/aggressive behavior of blacks, on avg''... so ''no there such thing innate lower black intelligence, it's environmental AND by racist reasons''.

    Indeed poor people has been neglected about some basic rights throughout the human history but i think even all social injustice they have suffered, they are not poor only because the evil rich but because they born with lower intelligence and impulse controls, this factors make them vulnerable to the predation or parasitism of evil clever people.

    London population has been exposed for very higher pollution levels since a long time, whatever social classes, even because London city is quite demographically populated and not with bigger size but is not everyone who have their intelligence levels reduced...

    In the end, i'm trying to understand what's going on and yes, based on what i see here where i live, blacks are not less smarter and more prone to violent behavior because evil white men but because themselves.

    And leftists tend to be extremely stubborn/intelectually arrogant, hypocritical, dissimulated and ignorant about human behavior.

    What do you think about en masse immigration to the western countries*

    Answer this question, please.

    Even, in this case you're right, ''you'' already have a historical of lies, dissimulations and stupid theories, for example, the so-called ''gender theory''.
  100. alan2102 says:
    @Chris Bridges
    OK, enough of this. No, one number can't explain the "whole person". Nobody ever said it could. But it can make a pretty good guess. lead poisoning? Give me a break. As one writer says, they must be a lot of it in Africa.

    “lead poisoning? Give me a break. As one writer says, they must be a lot of it in Africa.”

    Yes, there’s a lot of lead poisoning in Africa. Also other poisoning, both inorganics and organics, many of which are known to impair brain development and IQ expression. Also a lot of high-fluoride drinking water (powerful goitrogen, iodine antagonist). Also a vast amount of iron deficiency, often responsible for lowering IQ by 10 points or more. Also a vast amount of iodine deficiency, often responsible for lowering IQ by 10 points or more. Also a great deal of selenium deficiency; selenium being essential to thyroid hormone utilization (i.e. “iodine utilization”, to put it briefly); selenium deficit is the probable cause of cretinism — profound IQ loss (like, scores of points). Also a vast amount of untreated parasitic infestation, which alone can cause dramatic IQ decrement. Also…. oh, geez, it is late and I don’t feel like continuing. Suffice to say it is a long list. A list that will never be discussed in detail by the “race realists” and “HBD” crowd. Also never to be discussed by the “race realist” crowd is the way in which the West/North has looted and fucked-over Africa for generations, RESULTING in much (though not all) of the foregoing; i.e. our wonderful high-IQ whites created a continental context of chaos, poverty, chronic malnutrition and poor health, causing low population IQs, and then they conclude, since the majority of the African fuckees happen to be black, that it is the genetic inferiority of the black race that causes the low IQs! It is really quite a spectacle. Lies mixed with willful ignorance mixed with criminality mixed with blindness to the criminality mixed with toxic sludge. Delicious!

    Read More
    • Replies: @FKA Max
    Height Changes from 1914-2014

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/height-changes-from-1914-2014/

    In contrast, there was little change in adult height in some sub-Saharan African countries and in South Asia over the century of analysis.
    [...]
    Height is always interesting as a not-wholly-perfect analog for the Flynn Effect in IQ.
    [...]
    Africans were taller when the colonial era ended in the 1960s. They may have lost height because of collapsing health care systems, rising population density and less dietary diversity among urbanites, the authors said.
     
    ABOLISH ALL SCIENCE 'COS ITS RACIST! -SJW University Student

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1i80qaETtw8
    , @Johan Meyer
    If the IQ gap between Europe and sub Saharan Africa were primarily due to lead, Africa would likely be three to five times more violent, e.g. as measured by murder rates. I am aware of the very recent phase out of leaded petrol as well as the often very high lead content of the petrol e.g. 0.8 gram per litre in RSA iirc until 1981, as well as continued application of lead paint. Unless and until an environmental scientific account can explain the ethnic distribution of IQ in full, one will not have falsified the ethnic genetic hypothesis, and a premature effort at falsification is distraction from a larger and more important task of addressing the understood environmental problems, and developing further scientific understanding.
    , @Johan Meyer
    Also, as the author of the OP has an English surname, and as I have an ethnic duty to occasionally feign hatred toward the English (Anglo Boer war and all that), I'll put some blame for the African IQ on soccer.
    , @utu

    "a lot of lead poisoning in Africa. Also other poisoning, both inorganics and organics, many of which are known to impair brain development and IQ expression. Also a lot of high-fluoride drinking water (powerful goitrogen, iodine antagonist). Also a vast amount of iron deficiency, often responsible for lowering IQ by 10 points or more. Also a vast amount of iodine deficiency, often responsible for lowering IQ by 10 points or more. Also a great deal of selenium deficiency; selenium being essential to thyroid hormone utilization (i.e. “iodine utilization”, to put it briefly); selenium deficit is the probable cause of cretinism — profound IQ loss (like, scores of points). "
     
    Can yu provide any references for these claims?
  101. @CanSpeccy

    Do you believe if IQ tests start to measure/predict creative and rational ”skills” it will become more comprehensive
     
    There are two limitations with IQ tests. First, they measure not innate ability, but innate ability modified by experience, experience including education which may be lacking altogether, modest, intense or extreme (Mozart for example, whose father abandoned his own career to educate his children). You cannot do number tests without having been taught to be numerate, you cannot do verbal tests without having been taught to be literate, and standards of education vary immensely even at the elementary level. So what your test measures will never be pure innate ability.

    Second, IQ tests are based on implicit assumptions about the nature of human intelligence, or at least the intelligence that the test is supposed to measure. Mostly, intelligence tests have been devised either to see whether potential army recruits can understand and rationally act upon instructions such as "this way up" or "keep away from an open flame", etc., or whether prospective school entrants will be able to handle the curriculum.

    In some degree, IQ tests undoubtedly serve such purposes, although perhaps no better than other kinds of tests, e.g., relevant academic tests for school entrants. But certainly they do not measure innate ability unmodified by experience. Further, they measure no more than a narrow range of what constitutes intelligence if, by intelligence, we mean the adaptive function of the central nervous system, a function that is manifest in a vast range of capabilities.

    Such misrepresentation of what an IQ test measures results in absurdities such as in the case of a musical genius such as Derek Paravicini, who can identify by ear each of ten notes struck on the piano keyboard simultaneously, and like Mozart can memorize the Papal mass at a single hearing, but who yet has an IQ of less than 35.

    While most would probably consider intelligence as something displayed only in the intellectual sphere, to a biologist the distinction between intellectual functions of the brain and all its other functions seems entirely artificial. The brain is an organ that aids survival and reproduction. Intellectual functions may serve those ends, but so do many other functions of the brain. Kinesthetic aptitude, for example, serves at least as importantly in assuring survival and reproduction as any intellectual capacity. And, boy, doesn't that girl Simone Biles give you goose bumps? — her gymnastic performance is sheer genius.

    Or what about Bill Clinton and his claimed 2000 conquests! The power and versatility of the human brain is amazing and it cannot be captured in any comprehensive way by some simple paper and pencil test however ingenious.

    IQ is well correlated with ability in multiple fields, especially from median IQ down (many tasks are so-called g-loaded). Your counter-example is a case of savantism, an exception that accounts for a small portion of the population.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    IQ is well correlated with ability in multiple fields
     
    Except that creativity is understood as among the highest forms of intelligence by anyone but a psychologist with a stake in the business of intelligence testing.

    Thus, for example, Rushton, wrote:

    Eysenck suggests that intelligence* and creativity are essentially independent. In earlier work, Eysenck (1983) argued that creativity is significantly related to IQ up to about IQ 120, but after this, becomes independent of IQ. This has also been the view of other reviewers, none of whom downplays the importance of intelligence (e.g., Vernon, 1987).
     
    To most people, it would seem a contradiction in terms to suggest that intelligence is independent of creativity, since we view creative genius such as that of people like Newton, Einstein, Feynman (IQ 123) as the highest form of intelligence.

    However, psychologists have a large stake in establishing their authority to grade mankind according to "intelligence," and therefore they refuse to acknowledge that anything not measured by an IQ test can be intelligence, even though this forces them into absurd contortions such as claiming that creative genius is not a form of intelligence.
  102. @Mokiki
    See An Element of Doubt
    Disinterested research casts doubt on claims that lead poisoning from paint is widespread among American children. Ironically, lead-paint removal can be a cause of poisoning

    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1995/12/an-element-of-doubt/376495/

    I’ve not yet gotten to the comment to which you are replying, but I read the article to which you linked. It mentions that blood lead level is correlated to soil lead, which suggests continuous poisoning. I’ve argued elsewhere (comment 8) that sporadic poisoning leads to blood lead levels that are not correlated well to poisoning. NHANES III distribution of BLL suggests paint is sporadic poisoning. A better proxy for sporadic poisoning is bone, as lead in the bone has a half life of 30 years, and can be measured by K edge subtraction radiography.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    thank you for this interesting comment. I am looking at blood lead dose-response relationships at the moment.
  103. alan2102 says:
    @anon
    So even if you secretly believed
    - base IQ was primarily genetic (possibly downgraded by factors like lead and iodine)
    and (mostly) the result of
    - many genes of small effect
    which would lead to the possibility that
    - different populations could have different frequencies of those genes
    then you'd want to deny it anyway for political/moral reasons - which is okay.

    However assuming that secretly you do believe it's genetic and there are differences in the average between various groups then by denying it you'd be effectively sentencing dumb people to be dumb forever with no solutions to the problems caused by their dumbness.

    If the HBD case is true then the only way to fix it is by changing the gene frequencies.

    This could be done without publicly accepting racial differences - just admitting that intelligence is partly genetic would change people's mating behavior.

    Say mating decisions were brains vs brawn (where brawn means looks, health etc) I'd say -
    - women in the top 1/3 already weight it 60:40
    - women in the middle 1/3 maybe 50:50
    - and women in the bottom 1/3 40:60
    and by telling the truth the middle might shift to 55:45 and the bottom 1/3 to 50:50.

    This would have a huge impact on future generations, both on the ex-dumb and the people currently paying for the dumb.

    So if you secretly believed the HBD case was true then your position could still make sense politically - for example it could mean you thought you needed a large dumb underclass as a voting bank but there is no moral case for ensuring dumb people have dumb kids forever with no way out.

    Anon:

    So even if you secretly believed….

    However assuming that secretly you do believe….

    So if you secretly believed the HBD case was true….

    I have no “secret beliefs”. I made it PERFECTLY clear what I believe, and you cannot possibly have missed it, unless you’re stupid, and I’m assuming you’re not stupid. So, stop this “secretly believe” speculative bullshit and say what you have to say, whatever that may be.

    As far as remediation of low IQ is concerned, there are a bunch of options that have nothing to do with modifying gene frequencies (though gene expression would for sure be modified). The specifics of practical measures is a whole long discussion and I would rather not enter into it right now, though I have studied it in depth in years past.

    IQ probably has a genetic component, as I said in the initial post. How much of a genetic component is the question. My hunch, and I could be wrong, is: not much. But regardless, there are so many practical options for raising population IQs the world over — there is so very much fundamental work to be done to correct the fundamental causes of poor brain development and consequent cognitive/IQ problems — that there is no reason to directly fool with genes at all for at least a couple of generations, if even then. We have much more basic and urgent work to do.

    Some things are more important than IQ, as pointed out above by Mao Cheng Ji. What good are high IQs if they are used mostly to facilitate cheating and theft? This is an important question, but it does not justify nihilism with respect to basic fetal, infant and child care and brain development. We can and should pursue, as an axiomatic good, normal brain development, accompanied by normal IQ and cognitive development, for all children everywhere. We should engage in the fundamental work — nutrition, health care, environmental cleanup, etc. — that assures same. We know what to do. The science is clear enough.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu

    "The specifics of practical measures is a whole long discussion and I would rather not enter into it right now, though I have studied it in depth in years past."
     
    I am sure you can suggest some reading material. Publications...

    "We know what to do. The science is clear enough."
     
    Again, publications, please.
    , @utu

    "What good are high IQs if they are used mostly to facilitate cheating and theft? "
     
    Are you alluding to Jews?
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Your suggesting that IQ's genetic componentis "not much" suggests that you are not distinguishing between the question wrt ethnic groups and the question about individuals regardless of ethnicity. Why? Because no one with their eyes and ears open or the slightest acquaintance with the literature - particularly twin studies - has any doubt that smart patents tend to have smart kids and vice versa regardless of upbringing, though that helps in an often reciprocal way.
    , @anon

    I have no “secret beliefs”. I made it PERFECTLY clear what I believe, and you cannot possibly have missed it, unless you’re stupid, and I’m assuming you’re not stupid.
     
    That's what I thought.

    from an earlier post

    ...lead poisoning in Africa...high-fluoride drinking water (powerful goitrogen, iodine antagonist). Also a vast amount of iron deficiency...iodine deficiency, often responsible for lowering IQ by 10 points or more. Also a great deal of selenium deficiency; selenium being essential to thyroid hormone utilization (i.e. “iodine utilization”, to put it briefly); selenium deficit is the probable cause of cretinism — profound IQ loss (like, scores of points)...
     
    Cool. Personally all I ask from SJWs who can't or won't accept the genetic aspect (at least publicly) is they focus on biological solutions rather than the 60 years of sociological nonsense about pre-school, stereotype threat etc that will never work.

    It's biological.

    What good are high IQs if they are used mostly to facilitate cheating and theft?
     
    No argument there. I'm personally more interested in raising the IQ of the left side of the Bell curve out of the "running with scissors" range as that's where the consequences of low IQ are at their most bloody - particularly for the kids.
  104. FKA Max says:
    @alan2102
    "lead poisoning? Give me a break. As one writer says, they must be a lot of it in Africa."

    Yes, there's a lot of lead poisoning in Africa. Also other poisoning, both inorganics and organics, many of which are known to impair brain development and IQ expression. Also a lot of high-fluoride drinking water (powerful goitrogen, iodine antagonist). Also a vast amount of iron deficiency, often responsible for lowering IQ by 10 points or more. Also a vast amount of iodine deficiency, often responsible for lowering IQ by 10 points or more. Also a great deal of selenium deficiency; selenium being essential to thyroid hormone utilization (i.e. "iodine utilization", to put it briefly); selenium deficit is the probable cause of cretinism -- profound IQ loss (like, scores of points). Also a vast amount of untreated parasitic infestation, which alone can cause dramatic IQ decrement. Also.... oh, geez, it is late and I don't feel like continuing. Suffice to say it is a long list. A list that will never be discussed in detail by the "race realists" and "HBD" crowd. Also never to be discussed by the "race realist" crowd is the way in which the West/North has looted and fucked-over Africa for generations, RESULTING in much (though not all) of the foregoing; i.e. our wonderful high-IQ whites created a continental context of chaos, poverty, chronic malnutrition and poor health, causing low population IQs, and then they conclude, since the majority of the African fuckees happen to be black, that it is the genetic inferiority of the black race that causes the low IQs! It is really quite a spectacle. Lies mixed with willful ignorance mixed with criminality mixed with blindness to the criminality mixed with toxic sludge. Delicious!

    Height Changes from 1914-2014

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/height-changes-from-1914-2014/

    In contrast, there was little change in adult height in some sub-Saharan African countries and in South Asia over the century of analysis.
    [...]
    Height is always interesting as a not-wholly-perfect analog for the Flynn Effect in IQ.
    [...]
    Africans were taller when the colonial era ended in the 1960s. They may have lost height because of collapsing health care systems, rising population density and less dietary diversity among urbanites, the authors said.

    ABOLISH ALL SCIENCE ‘COS ITS RACIST! -SJW University Student

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    lol!!
    , @alan2102

    Africans were taller when the colonial era ended in the 1960s. They may have lost height because of collapsing health care systems, rising population density and less dietary diversity among urbanites, the authors said.
     
    Yes. Colonialism was a mix of good and bad, mostly bad. The reaction to colonialism, the "push-back", created conditions in some ways even worse than under colonialism; i.e. the remedy was in some ways worse than the disease. But the disease remains/remained the disease. The ugly truth is that the West/North fucked-over Africa horribly for centuries, and the fallout continues to this day. Part of the fallout is widespread malnutrition and disease, which naturally (is anyone surprised? COULD anyone be surprised?) results in stunting both mentally and physically, including low population IQs.

    For a good intro to the subject of how Africa has been fucked over for generations, read Patrick Bond's Looting Africa: The Economics of Exploitation. The full text is free, online.
  105. @Santoculto
    I don't understand your question.

    Please, do it again in the way i can understand it.

    See the second paragraph of the introduction of this article. At lower IQs, there is little evidence for multiple intelligences, and g has the most explanetory power. The paper argues that education reduces the mental load that an IQ test presents, although it should also be possible that a baseline minimum general intelligence is needed before specialization becomes significant enough to be measured.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    I went and got the article you cited: Education, Wechsler’s Full Scale IQ, and g and was shocked to find out that it was funded by the Spanish ‘‘Ministerio de Educacion y Cultura." Who's funding this ministry, Koch brothers?

    The authors got seduced by the concept of g and promulgate the rigmarole of 2nd order factors extracted from the 1st order factor, etc., etc.. All this is done on the shaky edifice constructed by very non-rigorous part time mathematician Spearman of ambiguous factor analysis that took 80 or so year of propping it up with many ad hoc criteria to assume some semblance of mathematical uniqueness. Total bunk. I wonder how this indoctrination of young scientist is being perpetrated? They are poor mathematicians, I guess, who rely of statistical packages to produce this nonsense. No self respecting mathematician would touch this junk.
    , @Santoculto
    To say"there is little evidence for multiple intelligence" is not prudent. Specially when we have psychometricians on the right telling it because seems they will quickly conclude that "no there such people who are emotionally smarter, it's just a better psychological traits arrangements". They believe intelligence is only cognitive. Period. Thanks to the earlier psychometricians and for the lack of curiosity and perfectionism of subsequent generations of psychometricians to just try to see what their subject lacks. Of course I already understand the problem here. No there such thing "emotional intelligence separated from general intelligence". Emotional abilities is in the domain of general intelligence. But there are that people who are emotionally smarter than others because they can understand better the emotional states of other people, they can know better other people and themselves if self knowledge also is part of emotional intelligence.

    G is a thing that psychometricians helps us to confuse or not to explain correctly what it's mean. I found in Paul Coojimans blog the most simplest and correct explanation for g, read: Real g= (correct) pattern recognition. For everything we do we need , first of all, recognize patterns. This is the real g, what is underlying in every activity we do from the most trivial to the most important.


    You need develop more your statements. For example why or how education reduce mental load of IQ tests?? What is the mental load of IQ tests? I still don't understand.
  106. @alan2102
    "lead poisoning? Give me a break. As one writer says, they must be a lot of it in Africa."

    Yes, there's a lot of lead poisoning in Africa. Also other poisoning, both inorganics and organics, many of which are known to impair brain development and IQ expression. Also a lot of high-fluoride drinking water (powerful goitrogen, iodine antagonist). Also a vast amount of iron deficiency, often responsible for lowering IQ by 10 points or more. Also a vast amount of iodine deficiency, often responsible for lowering IQ by 10 points or more. Also a great deal of selenium deficiency; selenium being essential to thyroid hormone utilization (i.e. "iodine utilization", to put it briefly); selenium deficit is the probable cause of cretinism -- profound IQ loss (like, scores of points). Also a vast amount of untreated parasitic infestation, which alone can cause dramatic IQ decrement. Also.... oh, geez, it is late and I don't feel like continuing. Suffice to say it is a long list. A list that will never be discussed in detail by the "race realists" and "HBD" crowd. Also never to be discussed by the "race realist" crowd is the way in which the West/North has looted and fucked-over Africa for generations, RESULTING in much (though not all) of the foregoing; i.e. our wonderful high-IQ whites created a continental context of chaos, poverty, chronic malnutrition and poor health, causing low population IQs, and then they conclude, since the majority of the African fuckees happen to be black, that it is the genetic inferiority of the black race that causes the low IQs! It is really quite a spectacle. Lies mixed with willful ignorance mixed with criminality mixed with blindness to the criminality mixed with toxic sludge. Delicious!

    If the IQ gap between Europe and sub Saharan Africa were primarily due to lead, Africa would likely be three to five times more violent, e.g. as measured by murder rates. I am aware of the very recent phase out of leaded petrol as well as the often very high lead content of the petrol e.g. 0.8 gram per litre in RSA iirc until 1981, as well as continued application of lead paint. Unless and until an environmental scientific account can explain the ethnic distribution of IQ in full, one will not have falsified the ethnic genetic hypothesis, and a premature effort at falsification is distraction from a larger and more important task of addressing the understood environmental problems, and developing further scientific understanding.

    Read More
    • Replies: @alan2102


    If the IQ gap between Europe and sub Saharan Africa were primarily due to lead

     

    Who on earth ever has, or ever would, make such a preposterous assertion?


    Unless and until an environmental scientific account can explain the ethnic distribution of IQ in full, one will not have falsified the ethnic genetic hypothesis

     

    Perhaps, if said falsification is anyone's goal. It isn't mine. I think genes probably have some modest influence. But it is not terribly important, for reasons I mentioned up thread.

    and a premature effort at falsification is distraction from a larger and more important task of addressing the understood environmental problems

     

    I agree about "larger and more important task", but I don't think the distraction is that great. Maybe I am wrong. Why do you say what you say? Convince me that I am wrong.
  107. @alan2102
    "lead poisoning? Give me a break. As one writer says, they must be a lot of it in Africa."

    Yes, there's a lot of lead poisoning in Africa. Also other poisoning, both inorganics and organics, many of which are known to impair brain development and IQ expression. Also a lot of high-fluoride drinking water (powerful goitrogen, iodine antagonist). Also a vast amount of iron deficiency, often responsible for lowering IQ by 10 points or more. Also a vast amount of iodine deficiency, often responsible for lowering IQ by 10 points or more. Also a great deal of selenium deficiency; selenium being essential to thyroid hormone utilization (i.e. "iodine utilization", to put it briefly); selenium deficit is the probable cause of cretinism -- profound IQ loss (like, scores of points). Also a vast amount of untreated parasitic infestation, which alone can cause dramatic IQ decrement. Also.... oh, geez, it is late and I don't feel like continuing. Suffice to say it is a long list. A list that will never be discussed in detail by the "race realists" and "HBD" crowd. Also never to be discussed by the "race realist" crowd is the way in which the West/North has looted and fucked-over Africa for generations, RESULTING in much (though not all) of the foregoing; i.e. our wonderful high-IQ whites created a continental context of chaos, poverty, chronic malnutrition and poor health, causing low population IQs, and then they conclude, since the majority of the African fuckees happen to be black, that it is the genetic inferiority of the black race that causes the low IQs! It is really quite a spectacle. Lies mixed with willful ignorance mixed with criminality mixed with blindness to the criminality mixed with toxic sludge. Delicious!

    Also, as the author of the OP has an English surname, and as I have an ethnic duty to occasionally feign hatred toward the English (Anglo Boer war and all that), I’ll put some blame for the African IQ on soccer.

    Read More
  108. utu says:
    @alan2102
    Anon:


    So even if you secretly believed....
    ...
    However assuming that secretly you do believe....
    ...
    So if you secretly believed the HBD case was true....

     

    I have no "secret beliefs". I made it PERFECTLY clear what I believe, and you cannot possibly have missed it, unless you're stupid, and I'm assuming you're not stupid. So, stop this "secretly believe" speculative bullshit and say what you have to say, whatever that may be.

    As far as remediation of low IQ is concerned, there are a bunch of options that have nothing to do with modifying gene frequencies (though gene expression would for sure be modified). The specifics of practical measures is a whole long discussion and I would rather not enter into it right now, though I have studied it in depth in years past.

    IQ probably has a genetic component, as I said in the initial post. How much of a genetic component is the question. My hunch, and I could be wrong, is: not much. But regardless, there are so many practical options for raising population IQs the world over -- there is so very much fundamental work to be done to correct the fundamental causes of poor brain development and consequent cognitive/IQ problems -- that there is no reason to directly fool with genes at all for at least a couple of generations, if even then. We have much more basic and urgent work to do.

    Some things are more important than IQ, as pointed out above by Mao Cheng Ji. What good are high IQs if they are used mostly to facilitate cheating and theft? This is an important question, but it does not justify nihilism with respect to basic fetal, infant and child care and brain development. We can and should pursue, as an axiomatic good, normal brain development, accompanied by normal IQ and cognitive development, for all children everywhere. We should engage in the fundamental work -- nutrition, health care, environmental cleanup, etc. -- that assures same. We know what to do. The science is clear enough.

    “The specifics of practical measures is a whole long discussion and I would rather not enter into it right now, though I have studied it in depth in years past.”

    I am sure you can suggest some reading material. Publications…

    “We know what to do. The science is clear enough.”

    Again, publications, please.

    Read More
    • Replies: @alan2102

    I am sure you can suggest some reading material. Publications…
     
    I would love to, but I'm no longer in the business. I moved on.

    Years ago, around 2003-2010, I undertook a detailed study of this stuff -- environmental, nutritional and related influences on brain development and IQ. My intention was to write a book on the subject. I was shocked by how much stuff was being ignored by the (so-called) "race realists", and by how studied was their ignorance. I mean, for "realists" who supposedly had a passionate interest in IQ and influences on IQ, it was amazing how they apparently had never lifted a finger to learn about the many and sometimes profound influences on IQ! My intention was to remedy that.

    But, several things kept me from completing the project. For one, it is a LOT of work, since there is such a large literature on these subjects, and most of it is scattered; composing and organizing it all is a massive task, and an UNPAID task. I am not rich, or a tenured professor, or someone working on a comfortable stipend. Also, I am not the best person to do the job, not having the best qualifications (to put it mildly! high school dropout autodidact). Also, to some extent I lost interest as I came to realize that the whole "race realism" thing was largely a tempest in a teapot. At the time (and occasionally even now! see my fiery posts up thread) I felt like I had to fight the ugly tide of right-wingery associated with "race realism". But the truth is that I don't, because "race realism" has no power or influence and is not going anywhere. The great majority of people reject it -- sometimes for poor reasons, but reject it they do, anyway. They sense its toxic (Stormfront-type) associations and they recoil in horror, as they should. So it is really not something that urgently calls for my activist efforts. "Race realism" will sputter along, impotently, for decades, but never go anywhere. Aside from a small coterie of rather dumb barely-literate Nazis (like AWM, here), no one is paying attention. Which is good.

    Anyway, that's my story. Sorry I can't give you a quick-'n-easy list of links to back up what I said. I should probably comb through the many megabytes of material, and many hundreds of citations, that I stored on disk, and come up with some kind of partial presentation (shy of the book that I intended, but at least something). That would be a good thing to do. If I get a month or so free, and some ambition for it, I might just do it.
  109. utu says:
    @alan2102
    Anon:


    So even if you secretly believed....
    ...
    However assuming that secretly you do believe....
    ...
    So if you secretly believed the HBD case was true....

     

    I have no "secret beliefs". I made it PERFECTLY clear what I believe, and you cannot possibly have missed it, unless you're stupid, and I'm assuming you're not stupid. So, stop this "secretly believe" speculative bullshit and say what you have to say, whatever that may be.

    As far as remediation of low IQ is concerned, there are a bunch of options that have nothing to do with modifying gene frequencies (though gene expression would for sure be modified). The specifics of practical measures is a whole long discussion and I would rather not enter into it right now, though I have studied it in depth in years past.

    IQ probably has a genetic component, as I said in the initial post. How much of a genetic component is the question. My hunch, and I could be wrong, is: not much. But regardless, there are so many practical options for raising population IQs the world over -- there is so very much fundamental work to be done to correct the fundamental causes of poor brain development and consequent cognitive/IQ problems -- that there is no reason to directly fool with genes at all for at least a couple of generations, if even then. We have much more basic and urgent work to do.

    Some things are more important than IQ, as pointed out above by Mao Cheng Ji. What good are high IQs if they are used mostly to facilitate cheating and theft? This is an important question, but it does not justify nihilism with respect to basic fetal, infant and child care and brain development. We can and should pursue, as an axiomatic good, normal brain development, accompanied by normal IQ and cognitive development, for all children everywhere. We should engage in the fundamental work -- nutrition, health care, environmental cleanup, etc. -- that assures same. We know what to do. The science is clear enough.

    “What good are high IQs if they are used mostly to facilitate cheating and theft? “

    Are you alluding to Jews?

    Read More
  110. utu says:
    @alan2102
    "lead poisoning? Give me a break. As one writer says, they must be a lot of it in Africa."

    Yes, there's a lot of lead poisoning in Africa. Also other poisoning, both inorganics and organics, many of which are known to impair brain development and IQ expression. Also a lot of high-fluoride drinking water (powerful goitrogen, iodine antagonist). Also a vast amount of iron deficiency, often responsible for lowering IQ by 10 points or more. Also a vast amount of iodine deficiency, often responsible for lowering IQ by 10 points or more. Also a great deal of selenium deficiency; selenium being essential to thyroid hormone utilization (i.e. "iodine utilization", to put it briefly); selenium deficit is the probable cause of cretinism -- profound IQ loss (like, scores of points). Also a vast amount of untreated parasitic infestation, which alone can cause dramatic IQ decrement. Also.... oh, geez, it is late and I don't feel like continuing. Suffice to say it is a long list. A list that will never be discussed in detail by the "race realists" and "HBD" crowd. Also never to be discussed by the "race realist" crowd is the way in which the West/North has looted and fucked-over Africa for generations, RESULTING in much (though not all) of the foregoing; i.e. our wonderful high-IQ whites created a continental context of chaos, poverty, chronic malnutrition and poor health, causing low population IQs, and then they conclude, since the majority of the African fuckees happen to be black, that it is the genetic inferiority of the black race that causes the low IQs! It is really quite a spectacle. Lies mixed with willful ignorance mixed with criminality mixed with blindness to the criminality mixed with toxic sludge. Delicious!

    “a lot of lead poisoning in Africa. Also other poisoning, both inorganics and organics, many of which are known to impair brain development and IQ expression. Also a lot of high-fluoride drinking water (powerful goitrogen, iodine antagonist). Also a vast amount of iron deficiency, often responsible for lowering IQ by 10 points or more. Also a vast amount of iodine deficiency, often responsible for lowering IQ by 10 points or more. Also a great deal of selenium deficiency; selenium being essential to thyroid hormone utilization (i.e. “iodine utilization”, to put it briefly); selenium deficit is the probable cause of cretinism — profound IQ loss (like, scores of points). “

    Can yu provide any references for these claims?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johan Meyer
    As I have taken an interest in the matter, two references, on paint and petrol. Note that most studies on blood lead in Africa are after the petrol phaseout and lead paint poisoning usually does not result in high average blood lead levels over time (my complaint about sporadic poisoning).
  111. utu says:
    @Johan Meyer
    See the second paragraph of the introduction of this article. At lower IQs, there is little evidence for multiple intelligences, and g has the most explanetory power. The paper argues that education reduces the mental load that an IQ test presents, although it should also be possible that a baseline minimum general intelligence is needed before specialization becomes significant enough to be measured.

    I went and got the article you cited: Education, Wechsler’s Full Scale IQ, and g and was shocked to find out that it was funded by the Spanish ‘‘Ministerio de Educacion y Cultura.” Who’s funding this ministry, Koch brothers?

    The authors got seduced by the concept of g and promulgate the rigmarole of 2nd order factors extracted from the 1st order factor, etc., etc.. All this is done on the shaky edifice constructed by very non-rigorous part time mathematician Spearman of ambiguous factor analysis that took 80 or so year of propping it up with many ad hoc criteria to assume some semblance of mathematical uniqueness. Total bunk. I wonder how this indoctrination of young scientist is being perpetrated? They are poor mathematicians, I guess, who rely of statistical packages to produce this nonsense. No self respecting mathematician would touch this junk.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johan Meyer
    It could be tested quite simply. There is a weak but real correlation between cranial volume and IQ. A stronger correlation may be obtained by using the average cranial volume of say a hundred people with the same IQ. Does the relationship between IQ and cranial volume hold as well at the higher end of the scale as it does at the lower end of the scale?
  112. @James Thompson
    Don't know about iodine insufficiency, but these reports are interesting. However, evidence for breast feeding boosting IQ is weak, in my view.
    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/breast-feeding-intelligence-and

    I was about to suggest to CanSpeccy that we ask you to say just what IQ tests are useful forand how useful they are with any necessary discriminations between different highly correlated measures of g. And I do…. But then a different question occurred to me also.

    Are there commonly used tests of (particularly) verbal abilities which are highly correlated with g and others which are not? If so what would the justification be for using the less g correlated? Has any research been done to show that some occupations require e.g. vast specialised or non-specialised vocabularies that csn be acquired by sheer hard work?

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    Interesting question. I don't have a simple guide to all intelligence tests, but agree that it would be useful. There are overviews in "IQ and human intelligence" Nicholas Mackintosh 2011 and "Human Intelligence" Earl Hunt 2012 , but I don't have a brief version. A task for someone. The most commonly used are probably Wechsler, Kaufman, Woodcock-Johnson, Raven's and Cattell.
    On Vocabulary tests I have posted some ideas
    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/vocabulary-humanitys-greatest
  113. @alan2102
    Anon:


    So even if you secretly believed....
    ...
    However assuming that secretly you do believe....
    ...
    So if you secretly believed the HBD case was true....

     

    I have no "secret beliefs". I made it PERFECTLY clear what I believe, and you cannot possibly have missed it, unless you're stupid, and I'm assuming you're not stupid. So, stop this "secretly believe" speculative bullshit and say what you have to say, whatever that may be.

    As far as remediation of low IQ is concerned, there are a bunch of options that have nothing to do with modifying gene frequencies (though gene expression would for sure be modified). The specifics of practical measures is a whole long discussion and I would rather not enter into it right now, though I have studied it in depth in years past.

    IQ probably has a genetic component, as I said in the initial post. How much of a genetic component is the question. My hunch, and I could be wrong, is: not much. But regardless, there are so many practical options for raising population IQs the world over -- there is so very much fundamental work to be done to correct the fundamental causes of poor brain development and consequent cognitive/IQ problems -- that there is no reason to directly fool with genes at all for at least a couple of generations, if even then. We have much more basic and urgent work to do.

    Some things are more important than IQ, as pointed out above by Mao Cheng Ji. What good are high IQs if they are used mostly to facilitate cheating and theft? This is an important question, but it does not justify nihilism with respect to basic fetal, infant and child care and brain development. We can and should pursue, as an axiomatic good, normal brain development, accompanied by normal IQ and cognitive development, for all children everywhere. We should engage in the fundamental work -- nutrition, health care, environmental cleanup, etc. -- that assures same. We know what to do. The science is clear enough.

    Your suggesting that IQ’s genetic componentis “not much” suggests that you are not distinguishing between the question wrt ethnic groups and the question about individuals regardless of ethnicity. Why? Because no one with their eyes and ears open or the slightest acquaintance with the literature – particularly twin studies – has any doubt that smart patents tend to have smart kids and vice versa regardless of upbringing, though that helps in an often reciprocal way.

    Read More
    • Replies: @alan2102

    no one with...the slightest acquaintance with the literature – particularly twin studies – has any doubt that smart patents tend to have smart kids and vice versa
     
    No one with the slightest acquaintance with the literature critiquing the twin studies has any doubt that the twin studies are not what they've been cracked-up to be -- probably not even close.

    Will the twin study technique eventually be consigned to the wastebasket of pseudoscience? Who knows? But it is a possibility.

    http://logosjournal.com/2015/joseph-twin-research/
    The Twin Research Debate in American Criminology
  114. @CanSpeccy

    But surely the IQ score comes into its own as one important prompt to schools to make sure their 3, 4, 5, 6 sigma kids are not bored to distraction and delinquency.
     
    The teaching business is incredibly conservative. The business of making children advance in lockstep with 30 others in their class for 12 years, guarantees that education is vastly less effective than it might be.

    Ideally, each child should be taught at their own pace and should advance through the grades as they achieve adequate mastery at each level, not because they have put in the time at a particular level. And with technology, teaching at the individual's own pace is surely now feasible, but educationalists are too dumb, it seems, to bring about the radical changes needed.

    As for the interaction of children of different abilities, it must be remembered that children do not all advance at the same pace. The fact that girls mature earlier than boys seems like a good reason for single sex education. And within any class of boys or girls there will be some that mature years earlier than others. Slow developers will suffer in the early going but developing late they will develop longer. So again, we cannot have the most effective education without adjusting the pace to the individual. At the end of each stage, we should be able to say not who is best at math or spelling but that everyone has achieved full proficiency, even if some never get beyond grade six or eight after 12 years of schooling.

    As it is, not only does the present system make school seem dull to the brightest kids but it makes school seem humiliating to the slowest kids, which is why as I recall, much of school was a dead loss, except for anything in a lab, or stuff with numbers. But oh God, French ... Latin... English grammar...

    #109 may interest you.

    Read More
  115. @Santoculto

    Suppose we kidnapped Chelsea Clinton at her birth and placed her into a hillbilly family. Would she be able to control her impulses?
     
    This supositions are generally problematic. I don't know how she would act even because we are talking about non-controlled scenarios. Many things would can happen and i don't know what is her personality to infer with some safety margin how she likely would act in this hypothetical and extraordinary situation.

    But i can tell you that she is likely to act with more prudence than a avg and classical/stereotypical hillbilly person.

    In the past seems most people had kids before and build their home after but even among them there are those who were better to manage it.

    Well, among people with lower general and cognitive intelligence, smarter people also can born. It's more rare than among families with higher ''intelligence'', but still happen occasionally.

    Well, whatever he emphasizes and whoever he’s married to, he’s certainly a ‘racialist’, like the fella @58. Otherwise, why would he even care about the measurement broken down by the dimension of so-called ‘races’. And once you start comparing ‘races’, inevitably you’ll find the superior and inferior ones among them. What you’re probably saying is that he isn’t a vulgar racist…
     
    whatever criteria you may can use, you will finish to create a ranking and with yourself inside it.

    So-called races are so evident and important that liberals are those who are more concerned and repetitive about it. If races really don't exist or better, if liberals really believe in their own beliefs they at least no more would mention so-called races.

    If you don't believe in so-called human races so you're positive about globalism* For China too*

    So-called races are so evident and important that liberals are those who are more concerned and repetitive about it.

    Yes, liberals are very much into ‘races’; it’s one of their favorite identities.

    I disagree that ‘races’ are evident: there are different definitions, borderlines are very much blurred already, and likely to become more and more blurred in the future, until this particular classification will stop making sense completely.

    I also disagree that it is important (essential). A very similar characteristic was customary essentialized not so long ago: hereditary nobility, hereditary royalty. It seemed extremely important only 200 years ago, and yet it’s almost completely gone now, and hardly anyone is bothered by its disappearance…

    Read More
    • Replies: @alan2102

    I disagree that ‘races’ are evident: there are different definitions, borderlines are very much blurred already, and likely to become more and more blurred in the future, until this particular classification will stop making sense completely.
    I also disagree that it is important (essential). A very similar characteristic was customary essentialized not so long ago: hereditary nobility, hereditary royalty. It seemed extremely important only 200 years ago, and yet it’s almost completely gone now, and hardly anyone is bothered by its disappearance…
     
    YES! And this is another reason that I lost interest. Taking the long view, race is doomed to irrelevance and non-existence in the modern/post-modern worlds of high mobility, social/marital mixing/dilution, combined with prevailing views which obscure or dismiss race as a category entirely. It might take another century, but it will happen. Race itself is doomed, and with it, racism and "race realism" and the like. Which of course is a good thing.
    , @Santoculto

    Yes, liberals are very much into ‘races’; it’s one of their favorite identities.

    I disagree that ‘races’ are evident: there are different definitions, borderlines are very much blurred already, and likely to become more and more blurred in the future, until this particular classification will stop making sense completely.
     
    It's not a good thing, i live in Brazil and most people here, who are mixed race, are not superior than anyone, otherwise, it's a nightmare for real smart people.

    The extermination of pure races, primarily white caucasian race, is the globalistic/global elitistic process. It's not good in any instance. I would no had problem with it if were based on truth and uncritical ideals but it's not.

    You disagree. It's extremely easy to discern a caucasian blue eyes person from a black african dark skin person. I'm not talking about what you disagree or what i disagree, but what is, whatever our personal opinions about it.

    hereditary nobility, hereditary royalty. It seemed extremely important only 200 years ago, and yet it’s almost completely gone now, and hardly anyone is bothered by its disappearance…
     
    You can't compare a true social construct with races, primarily, a biological construct.

    Anyone with ''load-poisoned'' brains as lieberals, seems...

    I can agree that races MAY BE NOT relevant, depend the perspective we are enphasizing, but while we have people who give relevance to it, ''she'' still be relevant...

    I'm more concerned about psychological ''races'' than physiological, but in the end, because all this liars and psychopaths manipulating ''us''' to believe races don't exist i become totally against this kaballistic global mèlange.

    In the IDEAL world, pure and mixed races will live in harmony and will have a perpetual balance between them.
  116. utu says:
    @anonymous
    wwebd said: g is the best approximation over large numbers of people faced with unchallenging but complicated cognitive tasks, but it is no more than that.
    Anecdotal evidence, which will be gathered by AIs over the next few decades, will of course demonstrate that any given individual, asked to rank a hundred individuals with which he or she is familiar, will most likely rank the person with the highest g as at the best at accomplishing 'cognitive tasks'.
    That being said, the AI gathered evidence will run several billion regression analyses which may have interesting results.
    And the version of g that the well-informed of the future will consider the best approximation will be much more loaded towards creativity - even in ranked cohorts of hundreds, and fantastically much more so in ranked cohorts of thousands and millions - than the current g is.
    Genes, prenatal health, a complete lack of iatrogenic and parental negative load, and local golden ages of Christian religious belief in the obvious megalopolis of secular and ideologically religious mystical beliefs will be where these predictions seem most accurate. Maybe.
    And, just as nobody cares anymore about the portrait of Dora Marr, nobody will feel anything but pity for the poor scientific geniuses (I am thinking more von Neumann than Kolmogorov here - check out their relative bios) who spent their lives scrambling to discover little tricks of number theory just moments or just days or months ahead of their rivals. (just kidding about von Neumann but wow that is one weird biography).
    On the other hand, maybe there are no golden ages ahead. There will still be lots of good art and lots of good food and nice people, one hopes, anyway. The eccentric mania for measurement will subside and maybe, as it (i.e., the world) rejoiced, in its way, in the very complex and uncharted cities of China of just three generations ago, the world will again rejoice, to a certain extent, in being unmapped.
    How about that.

    “The eccentric mania for measurement will subside “

    Not really if it serves the power structure. There will be funding coming often from strange and shady sources. See Charles Murray.

    Read More
  117. @alan2102
    CanSpeccy:


    Certainly they [the IQ-ists] rarely state any limitation on the implication of IQ. It’s supposed, according to them, to measure a young person’s prospects of getting a PhD, a patent, a tenured professorship, success in business, and by implication so much more, or so James Thompson would have us believe.

     

    That's right. Stating the limitations would -- apart from being honest -- diminish their status and the perceived import of their work. They imagine themselves to be working on THE psychological matter that largely determines life outcomes, and it is VERY important to them that others believe the same. The mythos must be supported, whether or not it corresponds to reality. Typical "professionals". It is like that in most fields.


    Thing is, though, while reference is often made to the success of those who were found in youth to have high IQ’s, less, indeed much less if anything at all, is said about those who though having been found to have not such high IQs in youth nevertheless went on to success as Nobel Prize winners, Professors, business executives, etc.

     

    Is that so? I did not know. Which is a reflection of how well the IQ-obsessed (the IQ-ists, the psychometricians) have done their brainwashing work. I'm not dumb, and I've read a fair amount of the IQ-related stuff, and I was not aware of what you just said. Whereas, if the field were honest and forthright, it would impossible for me (or anyone) to get far without encountering that fact. Ah, well. Typical "professionals". It is like that in most fields. Corruption and lying is the norm.


    they [the IQ-ists] might make a point of stating more often and more clearly exactly what it is that IQ measures, i.e., aptitude on a few numerical, verbal and pattern-matching tests, which may or may not have much to do with relative capacity in many functions of either the intellect or the central nervous system, or in life-time achievement.

     

    Yes, indeed they might! Except that telling the truth in that manner would have the effect of undermining their status, and with that, possibly, their influence, and even their salaries. So, instead of plain honest truth-telling, they inflate. It is NOT just "aptitude on a few pattern-matching tests", it is GENERAL intelligence, they say, with the clear implications of "universal" and "applicable and crucial in all situations" and even "that on which SUCCESS IN LIFE depends"!

    I don't think I've ever heard an idea more arrogant and presumptuous and self-important (on the part of those advancing it) than "GENERAL intelligence". And, to top it off, the reality of what they are actually talking about is that it is SPECIFIC intelligence -- quite specific to certain types of problems. There's nothing wrong with it, of course, and other things equal it is surely an advantage to have more rather than less of that specific ability. But jeezuz. "General" intelligence, my ass!

    It’s psychometric general intelligence, ;)

    Read More
    • Replies: @alan2102

    It's psychometric general intelligence
     
    But no one actually uses that phrase -- "PSYCHOMETRIC general intelligence". Ever. EVER.

    A google search for the phrase "psychometric general intelligence" returns 32 hits. 32!

    A google search for " general intelligence" returns 636 THOUSAND hits.

    This is deliberate. It is not referred to as "psychometric" general intelligence because that would place a proper, realistic, honest limit on the idea. The IQ-ists don't want that. They want to claim -- arrogantly, presumptuously, self-importantly -- GENERAL INTELLIGENCE. Get it?
  118. @Johan Meyer
    See the second paragraph of the introduction of this article. At lower IQs, there is little evidence for multiple intelligences, and g has the most explanetory power. The paper argues that education reduces the mental load that an IQ test presents, although it should also be possible that a baseline minimum general intelligence is needed before specialization becomes significant enough to be measured.

    To say”there is little evidence for multiple intelligence” is not prudent. Specially when we have psychometricians on the right telling it because seems they will quickly conclude that “no there such people who are emotionally smarter, it’s just a better psychological traits arrangements”. They believe intelligence is only cognitive. Period. Thanks to the earlier psychometricians and for the lack of curiosity and perfectionism of subsequent generations of psychometricians to just try to see what their subject lacks. Of course I already understand the problem here. No there such thing “emotional intelligence separated from general intelligence”. Emotional abilities is in the domain of general intelligence. But there are that people who are emotionally smarter than others because they can understand better the emotional states of other people, they can know better other people and themselves if self knowledge also is part of emotional intelligence.

    G is a thing that psychometricians helps us to confuse or not to explain correctly what it’s mean. I found in Paul Coojimans blog the most simplest and correct explanation for g, read: Real g= (correct) pattern recognition. For everything we do we need , first of all, recognize patterns. This is the real g, what is underlying in every activity we do from the most trivial to the most important.

    You need develop more your statements. For example why or how education reduce mental load of IQ tests?? What is the mental load of IQ tests? I still don’t understand.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johan Meyer
    G is mostly biological capacity and speed to correctly identify patterns. The paper to which I linked may be interpreted in this framework, on its author's terms, as saying that biological pattern recognition capacity dominates variation in IQ at lower IQs, but that learned pattern recognition dominates at higher IQs. Have you ever worked with pattern recognition and neural networks? They are widely used to recognise patterns that do not necessarily fit trivial mathematical forms. Neural networks must be trained with data conforming to the pattern and not conforming to the data to successfully discriminate the pattern in data. For many patterns, education may play that role when raw biological computational power does not suffice to give a large portion of the population the ability to discriminate a given set of patterns.
    , @Santoculto
    I have access only for abstract

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289602001228
  119. @CanSpeccy

    Do you believe if IQ tests start to measure/predict creative and rational ”skills” it will become more comprehensive
     
    There are two limitations with IQ tests. First, they measure not innate ability, but innate ability modified by experience, experience including education which may be lacking altogether, modest, intense or extreme (Mozart for example, whose father abandoned his own career to educate his children). You cannot do number tests without having been taught to be numerate, you cannot do verbal tests without having been taught to be literate, and standards of education vary immensely even at the elementary level. So what your test measures will never be pure innate ability.

    Second, IQ tests are based on implicit assumptions about the nature of human intelligence, or at least the intelligence that the test is supposed to measure. Mostly, intelligence tests have been devised either to see whether potential army recruits can understand and rationally act upon instructions such as "this way up" or "keep away from an open flame", etc., or whether prospective school entrants will be able to handle the curriculum.

    In some degree, IQ tests undoubtedly serve such purposes, although perhaps no better than other kinds of tests, e.g., relevant academic tests for school entrants. But certainly they do not measure innate ability unmodified by experience. Further, they measure no more than a narrow range of what constitutes intelligence if, by intelligence, we mean the adaptive function of the central nervous system, a function that is manifest in a vast range of capabilities.

    Such misrepresentation of what an IQ test measures results in absurdities such as in the case of a musical genius such as Derek Paravicini, who can identify by ear each of ten notes struck on the piano keyboard simultaneously, and like Mozart can memorize the Papal mass at a single hearing, but who yet has an IQ of less than 35.

    While most would probably consider intelligence as something displayed only in the intellectual sphere, to a biologist the distinction between intellectual functions of the brain and all its other functions seems entirely artificial. The brain is an organ that aids survival and reproduction. Intellectual functions may serve those ends, but so do many other functions of the brain. Kinesthetic aptitude, for example, serves at least as importantly in assuring survival and reproduction as any intellectual capacity. And, boy, doesn't that girl Simone Biles give you goose bumps? — her gymnastic performance is sheer genius.

    Or what about Bill Clinton and his claimed 2000 conquests! The power and versatility of the human brain is amazing and it cannot be captured in any comprehensive way by some simple paper and pencil test however ingenious.

    There are two limitations with IQ tests. First, they measure not innate ability, but innate ability modified by experience, experience including education which may be lacking altogether, modest, intense or extreme (Mozart for example, whose father abandoned his own career to educate his children). You cannot do number tests without having been taught to be numerate, you cannot do verbal tests without having been taught to be literate, and standards of education vary immensely even at the elementary level. So what your test measures will never be pure innate ability.

    In my opinion the most severe flaws of IQ TESTS is

    - no have context. To be smart or smarter in real world we must have real scenarios, the real world to be/act like that;

    - IQ don’t ”measure” psychological aspects, because intelligence IS the combination of cognitive and psychological features.

    I don’t believe Mozart would not become a genius fundamentally because your father because he already had the touch of innate originality inside him. It was a partnership, without Mozart genius the dedication of your father is likely would be infertile. Yes in terms of creative achievement the world is not this linear and expected chain of events what many people believe, namely for those who are more independent or at least original to think but when this people find a place to specialize they tend to go deeply into this area.

    I ask how would be the scores of highly creative achievers aka geniuses in divergent thinking tests.

    IQ don’t measure creative achievement so i think your example of Mozart don’t make sense here.

    Yes, to score higher in IQ tests namely in verbal tests [arythmetic and verbal] we must need to be exposed to this respective knowledges, learn a language, be literate and numerate. But i still believe that in normal situations IQ is good to measure what it measure. good enough to express more than just a single number.

    But even if we have hypothetical situation: a ”feral” person [Tarzan] without numeracy and literacy and compared with a average-intelligence person with numeracy and literacy, i think the feral person, when she is exposed to the human cultural knowledge, she will learn faster, but specially, she’s likely will be more perceptive and intelectually curious than the average-intelligence person. We are talking about genotypical intelligence, strongly associated with pattern recognition skills.

    I don’t believe education is magical to improve or to decrease innate intelligence, specially before correct literacy and numeracy. It’s personality traits and yes, innate cognitive abilities, now associated with literacy and numeracy that will mediate the scholastic performance.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Of course, a ''feral'' person WITH higher innate intelligence, born like that.
    , @CanSpeccy

    IQ don't measure creative achievement so i think your example of Mozart don't make sense here.
     
    My point was precisely that the highest form of intelligence, i.e., creativity, is not measured by an IQ test. Therefore, and IQ test, whatever it measures, is not a comprehensive measure of what people understand by the term intelligence.
  120. @Santoculto

    There are two limitations with IQ tests. First, they measure not innate ability, but innate ability modified by experience, experience including education which may be lacking altogether, modest, intense or extreme (Mozart for example, whose father abandoned his own career to educate his children). You cannot do number tests without having been taught to be numerate, you cannot do verbal tests without having been taught to be literate, and standards of education vary immensely even at the elementary level. So what your test measures will never be pure innate ability.
     
    In my opinion the most severe flaws of IQ TESTS is

    - no have context. To be smart or smarter in real world we must have real scenarios, the real world to be/act like that;

    - IQ don't ''measure'' psychological aspects, because intelligence IS the combination of cognitive and psychological features.

    I don't believe Mozart would not become a genius fundamentally because your father because he already had the touch of innate originality inside him. It was a partnership, without Mozart genius the dedication of your father is likely would be infertile. Yes in terms of creative achievement the world is not this linear and expected chain of events what many people believe, namely for those who are more independent or at least original to think but when this people find a place to specialize they tend to go deeply into this area.

    I ask how would be the scores of highly creative achievers aka geniuses in divergent thinking tests.

    IQ don't measure creative achievement so i think your example of Mozart don't make sense here.

    Yes, to score higher in IQ tests namely in verbal tests [arythmetic and verbal] we must need to be exposed to this respective knowledges, learn a language, be literate and numerate. But i still believe that in normal situations IQ is good to measure what it measure. good enough to express more than just a single number.

    But even if we have hypothetical situation: a ''feral'' person [Tarzan] without numeracy and literacy and compared with a average-intelligence person with numeracy and literacy, i think the feral person, when she is exposed to the human cultural knowledge, she will learn faster, but specially, she's likely will be more perceptive and intelectually curious than the average-intelligence person. We are talking about genotypical intelligence, strongly associated with pattern recognition skills.

    I don't believe education is magical to improve or to decrease innate intelligence, specially before correct literacy and numeracy. It's personality traits and yes, innate cognitive abilities, now associated with literacy and numeracy that will mediate the scholastic performance.

    Of course, a ”feral” person WITH higher innate intelligence, born like that.

    Read More
  121. @CanSpeccy

    Do you believe if IQ tests start to measure/predict creative and rational ”skills” it will become more comprehensive
     
    There are two limitations with IQ tests. First, they measure not innate ability, but innate ability modified by experience, experience including education which may be lacking altogether, modest, intense or extreme (Mozart for example, whose father abandoned his own career to educate his children). You cannot do number tests without having been taught to be numerate, you cannot do verbal tests without having been taught to be literate, and standards of education vary immensely even at the elementary level. So what your test measures will never be pure innate ability.

    Second, IQ tests are based on implicit assumptions about the nature of human intelligence, or at least the intelligence that the test is supposed to measure. Mostly, intelligence tests have been devised either to see whether potential army recruits can understand and rationally act upon instructions such as "this way up" or "keep away from an open flame", etc., or whether prospective school entrants will be able to handle the curriculum.

    In some degree, IQ tests undoubtedly serve such purposes, although perhaps no better than other kinds of tests, e.g., relevant academic tests for school entrants. But certainly they do not measure innate ability unmodified by experience. Further, they measure no more than a narrow range of what constitutes intelligence if, by intelligence, we mean the adaptive function of the central nervous system, a function that is manifest in a vast range of capabilities.

    Such misrepresentation of what an IQ test measures results in absurdities such as in the case of a musical genius such as Derek Paravicini, who can identify by ear each of ten notes struck on the piano keyboard simultaneously, and like Mozart can memorize the Papal mass at a single hearing, but who yet has an IQ of less than 35.

    While most would probably consider intelligence as something displayed only in the intellectual sphere, to a biologist the distinction between intellectual functions of the brain and all its other functions seems entirely artificial. The brain is an organ that aids survival and reproduction. Intellectual functions may serve those ends, but so do many other functions of the brain. Kinesthetic aptitude, for example, serves at least as importantly in assuring survival and reproduction as any intellectual capacity. And, boy, doesn't that girl Simone Biles give you goose bumps? — her gymnastic performance is sheer genius.

    Or what about Bill Clinton and his claimed 2000 conquests! The power and versatility of the human brain is amazing and it cannot be captured in any comprehensive way by some simple paper and pencil test however ingenious.

    ”Second, IQ tests are based on implicit assumptions about the nature of human intelligence, or at least the intelligence that the test is supposed to measure. Mostly, intelligence tests have been devised either to see whether potential army recruits can understand and rationally act upon instructions such as “this way up” or “keep away from an open flame”, etc., or whether prospective school entrants will be able to handle the curriculum.”

    I agree. IQ tests are also based on what their creators believe it’s the ”intelligent thing” to ask and to answer. Even with all this limitations, IQ in my opinion is reasonably good enough to measure cognitive aspects of intelligence. Not everything, but it’s something.

    In my case for example. I know in terms of ”general cognitive intelligence” i will score above average [Greenwich 100] but not above 120. General is just the perimeter of intelligence. If i’m compared with many people i know in this general and cognitive aspect i will be above-average. I can visualize it very well.

    In some degree, IQ tests undoubtedly serve such purposes, although perhaps no better than other kinds of tests, e.g., relevant academic tests for school entrants. But certainly they do not measure innate ability unmodified by experience. Further, they measure no more than a narrow range of what constitutes intelligence if, by intelligence, we mean the adaptive function of the central nervous system, a function that is manifest in a vast range of capabilities.

    I think IQ measure some innate abilities but embodied by ”cultural clothes”, for example, verbal ”intelligence” [;)]. Innate abilities or skin and literacy or ”cultural clothes”. You can deduct the shape of breast based on format he do in the clothes, specially if the clothes are thin. You can deduct ”verbal” innate ability based on how bigger [and qualitative] it be in literacy.

    And it’s the description and qualification of things that is underlying in verbal ability. ”We” invent and use words to associate them with real things and to descript and qualify them.

    I don’t think they measure a narrow, if verbal skills for example are extremely important for us, to communicate, to understand a mathematical problem, to verbalize the shape of geometric figures, etc… i think they measure the basal level of this.

    IQ is important but we must take into account psychological assessment and ”measurement” of creativity and rationality, and never treat it as ultimate evaluation, only for some perspectives.

    Read More
  122. @CanSpeccy

    Do you believe if IQ tests start to measure/predict creative and rational ”skills” it will become more comprehensive
     
    There are two limitations with IQ tests. First, they measure not innate ability, but innate ability modified by experience, experience including education which may be lacking altogether, modest, intense or extreme (Mozart for example, whose father abandoned his own career to educate his children). You cannot do number tests without having been taught to be numerate, you cannot do verbal tests without having been taught to be literate, and standards of education vary immensely even at the elementary level. So what your test measures will never be pure innate ability.

    Second, IQ tests are based on implicit assumptions about the nature of human intelligence, or at least the intelligence that the test is supposed to measure. Mostly, intelligence tests have been devised either to see whether potential army recruits can understand and rationally act upon instructions such as "this way up" or "keep away from an open flame", etc., or whether prospective school entrants will be able to handle the curriculum.

    In some degree, IQ tests undoubtedly serve such purposes, although perhaps no better than other kinds of tests, e.g., relevant academic tests for school entrants. But certainly they do not measure innate ability unmodified by experience. Further, they measure no more than a narrow range of what constitutes intelligence if, by intelligence, we mean the adaptive function of the central nervous system, a function that is manifest in a vast range of capabilities.

    Such misrepresentation of what an IQ test measures results in absurdities such as in the case of a musical genius such as Derek Paravicini, who can identify by ear each of ten notes struck on the piano keyboard simultaneously, and like Mozart can memorize the Papal mass at a single hearing, but who yet has an IQ of less than 35.

    While most would probably consider intelligence as something displayed only in the intellectual sphere, to a biologist the distinction between intellectual functions of the brain and all its other functions seems entirely artificial. The brain is an organ that aids survival and reproduction. Intellectual functions may serve those ends, but so do many other functions of the brain. Kinesthetic aptitude, for example, serves at least as importantly in assuring survival and reproduction as any intellectual capacity. And, boy, doesn't that girl Simone Biles give you goose bumps? — her gymnastic performance is sheer genius.

    Or what about Bill Clinton and his claimed 2000 conquests! The power and versatility of the human brain is amazing and it cannot be captured in any comprehensive way by some simple paper and pencil test however ingenious.

    Such misrepresentation of what an IQ test measures results in absurdities such as in the case of a musical genius such as Derek Paravicini, who can identify by ear each of ten notes struck on the piano keyboard simultaneously, and like Mozart can memorize the Papal mass at a single hearing, but who yet has an IQ of less than 35.

    Paravicini born with Savant syndrome. A island of genius sorrounded by a ocean of deficience.

    He have or had a very unusual brain, with innate and/or natural ability to learn music at master or very professional levels at very faster way. I always think savant people are a great counterargument to the supposed and restrict necessity of the education, ;), because savant syndrome is a extremely intense and umbalanced demonstration about what also tend to happen with gifted people.

    Kinesthetic aptitude, for example, serves at least as importantly in assuring survival and reproduction as any intellectual capacity. And, boy, doesn’t that girl Simone Biles give you goose bumps? — her gymnastic performance is sheer genius.

    Yes, most people know that IQ don’t measure athletic skills.

    One of the two most fundamental flaws of IQ i don’t said in my previous comment

    IQ don’t ”measure”

    character /benignity

    self knowledge

    most of this IQ-tards or IQ-diots who think they are geniuses only because their higher scores in IQ tests and… simply don’t prove their self-declared geniuses lacks

    self-knowledge

    If all human beings have some of this fundamental traits just like rationality and self knowledge i doubt we still would live in this hell on Earth.

    But psychometricians specially on the right, seems, have little to nonexistent curiosity to learn more about self knowledge.

    Intrapersonal skills in my opinion is fundamental, primordial to the intelligence. If you misunderstood yourself the probabilities to be or to act in stupid ways will be higher. It’s just like the domino effect.

    Or what about Bill Clinton and his claimed 2000 conquests! The power and versatility of the human brain is amazing and it cannot be captured in any comprehensive way by some simple paper and pencil test however ingenious.

    We are talking about sociopathy too*

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    Yes, most people know that IQ don’t measure athletic skills.
     
    Kinesthetic ability being an aspect of intelligence, understood as the term is defined e.g., by the Merriam Webster dictionary:

    (1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations...

    So physical coordination is a vital part of intelligence, and the fact that psychologists blithely ignore it in their assessment of human ability is further proof of their narrow and misleading acceptation of the term intelligence.

    The Greeks of ancient times were more intelligent in this regard as is evident from their emphasis in education on developing physical as well as mental skills.
    , @CanSpeccy

    most of this IQ-tards or IQ-diots who think they are geniuses only because their higher scores in IQ tests and… simply don’t prove their self-declared geniuses lacks self-knowledge
     
    Your comment reminds me of an old classmate. In our first term at a new school I came first in the class in, I think, every subject, he came last. After studying the announcement of results posted on the classroom noticeboard, he peered around the room — he was terribly short-sighted, with Coke-bottle-bottom glasses — until, picking me out, he strode across the room hand outstretched and said "Well done ...." Recently, I saw it announced that my charmingly well mannered classmate had received an honor from Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, for his contribution in the field of social services.

    So, yes, self-knowledge, humility, and decency can pay off big-time as a means of adapting the individual successfully to their environment, and thus should be understood as an important aspect of intelligence.
  123. @Santoculto
    To say"there is little evidence for multiple intelligence" is not prudent. Specially when we have psychometricians on the right telling it because seems they will quickly conclude that "no there such people who are emotionally smarter, it's just a better psychological traits arrangements". They believe intelligence is only cognitive. Period. Thanks to the earlier psychometricians and for the lack of curiosity and perfectionism of subsequent generations of psychometricians to just try to see what their subject lacks. Of course I already understand the problem here. No there such thing "emotional intelligence separated from general intelligence". Emotional abilities is in the domain of general intelligence. But there are that people who are emotionally smarter than others because they can understand better the emotional states of other people, they can know better other people and themselves if self knowledge also is part of emotional intelligence.

    G is a thing that psychometricians helps us to confuse or not to explain correctly what it's mean. I found in Paul Coojimans blog the most simplest and correct explanation for g, read: Real g= (correct) pattern recognition. For everything we do we need , first of all, recognize patterns. This is the real g, what is underlying in every activity we do from the most trivial to the most important.


    You need develop more your statements. For example why or how education reduce mental load of IQ tests?? What is the mental load of IQ tests? I still don't understand.

    G is mostly biological capacity and speed to correctly identify patterns. The paper to which I linked may be interpreted in this framework, on its author’s terms, as saying that biological pattern recognition capacity dominates variation in IQ at lower IQs, but that learned pattern recognition dominates at higher IQs. Have you ever worked with pattern recognition and neural networks? They are widely used to recognise patterns that do not necessarily fit trivial mathematical forms. Neural networks must be trained with data conforming to the pattern and not conforming to the data to successfully discriminate the pattern in data. For many patterns, education may play that role when raw biological computational power does not suffice to give a large portion of the population the ability to discriminate a given set of patterns.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto

    The paper to which I linked may be interpreted in this framework, on its author’s terms, as saying that biological pattern recognition capacity dominates variation in IQ at lower IQs, but that learned pattern recognition dominates at higher IQs
     
    Yes i understand now. Basically lower IQ people have basal capacity to pattern recognition but higher IQ people already have the capacity to recognize complex/abstract patterns... because they are better to learn more of this complex things and tend to advance more based on this previous learnings.

    Basically, metaphorically speaking, we have a ladder. Lower IQ people tend to reach only the first step of this ladder while Higher IQ people have the capacity and usually reach many/more steps of this [convergent] ladder.

    If i finally understand well.

    For many patterns, education may play that role when raw biological computational power does not suffice to give a large portion of the population the ability to discriminate a given set of patterns.
     
    Do you could give some example about it*

    Play that role in lower IQ people*
  124. @utu
    I went and got the article you cited: Education, Wechsler’s Full Scale IQ, and g and was shocked to find out that it was funded by the Spanish ‘‘Ministerio de Educacion y Cultura." Who's funding this ministry, Koch brothers?

    The authors got seduced by the concept of g and promulgate the rigmarole of 2nd order factors extracted from the 1st order factor, etc., etc.. All this is done on the shaky edifice constructed by very non-rigorous part time mathematician Spearman of ambiguous factor analysis that took 80 or so year of propping it up with many ad hoc criteria to assume some semblance of mathematical uniqueness. Total bunk. I wonder how this indoctrination of young scientist is being perpetrated? They are poor mathematicians, I guess, who rely of statistical packages to produce this nonsense. No self respecting mathematician would touch this junk.

    It could be tested quite simply. There is a weak but real correlation between cranial volume and IQ. A stronger correlation may be obtained by using the average cranial volume of say a hundred people with the same IQ. Does the relationship between IQ and cranial volume hold as well at the higher end of the scale as it does at the lower end of the scale?

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    There is a weak but real correlation between cranial volume and IQ.
     
    Yes, very weak, 7% according to Stephen Jay Gould, and that probably due largely to the effect of pathological microcephaly giving the relationship a small slant.

    It is interesting in that connection, that the brain of Carl Friedrich Gauss, perhaps the greatest mathematician of all time, was found on autopsy to weigh a mere 1,492 grams (only slightly above average) . As a result, there were some who concluded that Gauss could n't have been such a great mathematician as people had thought.

    We see the same reaction to revelations such as that neither Shockley nor Alvarez, winners of the Nobel Prize for physics, made the cut when tested by Terman for his long-term study of gifted individuals: they really couldn't have been that smart.
  125. @utu

    "a lot of lead poisoning in Africa. Also other poisoning, both inorganics and organics, many of which are known to impair brain development and IQ expression. Also a lot of high-fluoride drinking water (powerful goitrogen, iodine antagonist). Also a vast amount of iron deficiency, often responsible for lowering IQ by 10 points or more. Also a vast amount of iodine deficiency, often responsible for lowering IQ by 10 points or more. Also a great deal of selenium deficiency; selenium being essential to thyroid hormone utilization (i.e. “iodine utilization”, to put it briefly); selenium deficit is the probable cause of cretinism — profound IQ loss (like, scores of points). "
     
    Can yu provide any references for these claims?

    As I have taken an interest in the matter, two references, on paint and petrol. Note that most studies on blood lead in Africa are after the petrol phaseout and lead paint poisoning usually does not result in high average blood lead levels over time (my complaint about sporadic poisoning).

    Read More
  126. @Santoculto
    To say"there is little evidence for multiple intelligence" is not prudent. Specially when we have psychometricians on the right telling it because seems they will quickly conclude that "no there such people who are emotionally smarter, it's just a better psychological traits arrangements". They believe intelligence is only cognitive. Period. Thanks to the earlier psychometricians and for the lack of curiosity and perfectionism of subsequent generations of psychometricians to just try to see what their subject lacks. Of course I already understand the problem here. No there such thing "emotional intelligence separated from general intelligence". Emotional abilities is in the domain of general intelligence. But there are that people who are emotionally smarter than others because they can understand better the emotional states of other people, they can know better other people and themselves if self knowledge also is part of emotional intelligence.

    G is a thing that psychometricians helps us to confuse or not to explain correctly what it's mean. I found in Paul Coojimans blog the most simplest and correct explanation for g, read: Real g= (correct) pattern recognition. For everything we do we need , first of all, recognize patterns. This is the real g, what is underlying in every activity we do from the most trivial to the most important.


    You need develop more your statements. For example why or how education reduce mental load of IQ tests?? What is the mental load of IQ tests? I still don't understand.
    Read More
  127. @FKA Max
    Height Changes from 1914-2014

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/height-changes-from-1914-2014/

    In contrast, there was little change in adult height in some sub-Saharan African countries and in South Asia over the century of analysis.
    [...]
    Height is always interesting as a not-wholly-perfect analog for the Flynn Effect in IQ.
    [...]
    Africans were taller when the colonial era ended in the 1960s. They may have lost height because of collapsing health care systems, rising population density and less dietary diversity among urbanites, the authors said.
     
    ABOLISH ALL SCIENCE 'COS ITS RACIST! -SJW University Student

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1i80qaETtw8

    lol!!

    Read More
  128. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Wizard of Oz
    Thanks to adding to my battery of explanations for the Flynn effect. Mine include test sophistication, radio programs which required focus and attention (not least the comedies), antibiotics, anti-inflammatories etc

    you’re welcome.

    it’s been known for decades that iodine deficiency lowers IQ so anything that adds to or reduces a deficiency will effect people.

    and that is not just adding iodine itself (where deficient) e.g. more fish, but also other factors which may reduce the positive effect of iodine e.g. bromide, chloride, fluoride, lead(?).

    Read More
    • Replies: @alan2102

    not just adding iodine itself (where deficient) e.g. more fish, but also other factors which may reduce the positive effect of iodine e.g. bromide, chloride, fluoride
     
    Yes, in addition to other goitrogens, including organic dietary ones such as cyanogenic glycosides, richly supplied by the non-indigenous (introduced by the colonizers) staple food cassava. Goiter and hypothyroidism are rampant throughout Africa, with disastrous implications for brain development and IQ. The real action with respect to iodine is thyroid status, as I pointed out up thread. All of this is well-documented, if anyone cares to look.
  129. alan2102 says:
    @Johan Meyer
    If the IQ gap between Europe and sub Saharan Africa were primarily due to lead, Africa would likely be three to five times more violent, e.g. as measured by murder rates. I am aware of the very recent phase out of leaded petrol as well as the often very high lead content of the petrol e.g. 0.8 gram per litre in RSA iirc until 1981, as well as continued application of lead paint. Unless and until an environmental scientific account can explain the ethnic distribution of IQ in full, one will not have falsified the ethnic genetic hypothesis, and a premature effort at falsification is distraction from a larger and more important task of addressing the understood environmental problems, and developing further scientific understanding.

    If the IQ gap between Europe and sub Saharan Africa were primarily due to lead

    Who on earth ever has, or ever would, make such a preposterous assertion?

    Unless and until an environmental scientific account can explain the ethnic distribution of IQ in full, one will not have falsified the ethnic genetic hypothesis

    Perhaps, if said falsification is anyone’s goal. It isn’t mine. I think genes probably have some modest influence. But it is not terribly important, for reasons I mentioned up thread.

    and a premature effort at falsification is distraction from a larger and more important task of addressing the understood environmental problems

    I agree about “larger and more important task”, but I don’t think the distraction is that great. Maybe I am wrong. Why do you say what you say? Convince me that I am wrong.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johan Meyer
    The reason I feel it is a very harmful distraction is because there is a critical mass of IQ researchers (the Human Biodiversity crowd) that has an immense interest in the matter. If they can be convinced to substantially test viable environmental models, it can force the hands of governments in poor countries. The leadership of the poor countries tend to believe in white supremacy, so if an account, however incomplete, of environmentally induced white supremacy can be given, especially from a white source, those rotters can be forced into action.
  130. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @CanSpeccy

    No they aren’t, and they don’t.
     
    Well in that case, the better to be understood, they might make a point of stating more often and more clearly exactly what it is that IQ measures, i.e., aptitude on a few numerical, verbal and pattern-matching tests, which may or may not have much to do with relative capacity in many functions of either the intellect or the central nervous system, or in life-time achievement.

    what it is that IQ measures

    brain health?

    (at least the many genes of small effect)

    (i suspect any large effect genes with negative side effects would more likely be the result of a selective niche)

    Read More
  131. @Johan Meyer
    With regards to blacks in the rural south, there were depression era programs to supply lead paint to rural people, e.g. blacks in Alabama. In fairness, lead paint was a status object at the time, so a comparison with Obama phones is warrantes. See "Brush with Death: A Social History of Lead Poisoning" by Christian Warren, p9.

    I think you are confusing social class with lead poisoning

    Because they tend to be poor, governments, specially in the past, with ZERO echological and social conscience, has transferred hard industries to the poor neighborhoods. So we have a association of three variables: [already existent] avg lower intelligence/lack of control impulse, black ethnicity and comparatively higher exposition to industrial toxicity.

    http://www.healthline.com/health/lead-poisoning#prevention8

    If most blacks [whatever the place they are**] are constantly presenting these symptoms, then we are actually talking about something closer to what you have advocated here.

    ”We” must prove that

    is really happening/happened a epidemic lead poisoning;

    that lead poisoning [in higher levels of contamination] reduce intelligence [''aka'' IQ] as zika virus cause microcephaly,

    that this reduction of intelligence will persists…

    I’m born and live in place where levels of lead poisoning has been lower and still i see the same white-black-whatever discrepancies in intelligence…

    The cognitive and psychological discrepancies are not local phenomena, it’s general, generalized, whatever place people are.

    I’m understanding your thinking lines, you are saying basically that ”lead poisoning is one of the responsible for lower intelligence/aggressive behavior of blacks, on avg”… so ”no there such thing innate lower black intelligence, it’s environmental AND by racist reasons”.

    Indeed poor people has been neglected about some basic rights throughout the human history but i think even all social injustice they have suffered, they are not poor only because the evil rich but because they born with lower intelligence and impulse controls, this factors make them vulnerable to the predation or parasitism of evil clever people.

    London population has been exposed for very higher pollution levels since a long time, whatever social classes, even because London city is quite demographically populated and not with bigger size but is not everyone who have their intelligence levels reduced…

    In the end, i’m trying to understand what’s going on and yes, based on what i see here where i live, blacks are not less smarter and more prone to violent behavior because evil white men but because themselves.

    And leftists tend to be extremely stubborn/intelectually arrogant, hypocritical, dissimulated and ignorant about human behavior.

    What do you think about en masse immigration to the western countries*

    Answer this question, please.

    Even, in this case you’re right, ”you” already have a historical of lies, dissimulations and stupid theories, for example, the so-called ”gender theory”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johan Meyer
    My view is let the chips fall where they may. However, I do notice general ignorance (left and right, including among advocates for lead removal) a very large ignorance about lead poisoning realities (distribution of poisoning e.g. geographical, biomechanics e.g. wrt placenta, blood brain barrier etc).

    You say that your region has had lower poisoning---prior to leaded gasoline phaseout, what was the geometric mean blood lead level, and post-phaseout, what proportion of the infant population had bll above 10microgram per decilitre? In the sporadic poisoning regime, that number may be roughly multiplied by ten to get actual poisoning.
    , @Johan Meyer
    As to immigration, I shall restrict my comments to large scale immigration such as is now a problem. There is the concern about IQ and cultural practices, the concern about ethnic displacement, and the concern about elite motivation.

    As to ethnic displacement, that is evil, both in the first and third world; see a rant by Andre Vltchek in regards the latter. I cannot condone it.

    As to cultural practices, once they become entrenched in the new home, they become harder to eradicate there than in the old home. Cases in point: FGM (almost absent in northern Nigeria, very strongly present in southern Nigeria---consider likely route of transmission) and honour killings (Palestinian if Fisk is to be believed, yet seems to be a bigger problem in the Diaspora than in historical Palestine). So another evil...

    As to IQ, we shall see---my intuition is that inter-ethnic IQ is dominated by environment, but some of that is cultural (e.g. mercury based skin bleaches), and much of Europe only recently phased out leaded petrol (outside Germany and the Nordics), so the children of immigrants should be pathological for a while yet (tendency to settle in larger cities; tendency toward lactose intolerance hence little calcium intake to displace lead).

    As to elite motivation, I think they want sheep, cheap labour (the threat of immigrant scabs), and the breakdown of ethnicity as a source of commonality for resistance to elite designs.
    , @Johan Meyer
    I missed that you are from London (I assume UK, not ON Canada). What proportion of London blacks were born in UK? Lead poisoning is largerly an issue in infancy wrt crime, IQ. Also, for those areas with UK born blacks, what is the age of the housing stock? Lead paint was banned in the 30s in UK iirc. As to lead and pathology, despite my disagreement on epidemiology with Nevin, I do recommend his website as a starting point---though I am suspicious of his dose response (IQ) based on the epidemiological concern.
    , @Johan Meyer
    In particular I would like your comments about this piece by Nevin (again, with my complaint about BLL)... It strikes me as a direct test of the claimed causality, with strong failure to falsify.
  132. alan2102 says:
    @FKA Max
    Height Changes from 1914-2014

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/height-changes-from-1914-2014/

    In contrast, there was little change in adult height in some sub-Saharan African countries and in South Asia over the century of analysis.
    [...]
    Height is always interesting as a not-wholly-perfect analog for the Flynn Effect in IQ.
    [...]
    Africans were taller when the colonial era ended in the 1960s. They may have lost height because of collapsing health care systems, rising population density and less dietary diversity among urbanites, the authors said.
     
    ABOLISH ALL SCIENCE 'COS ITS RACIST! -SJW University Student

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1i80qaETtw8

    Africans were taller when the colonial era ended in the 1960s. They may have lost height because of collapsing health care systems, rising population density and less dietary diversity among urbanites, the authors said.

    Yes. Colonialism was a mix of good and bad, mostly bad. The reaction to colonialism, the “push-back”, created conditions in some ways even worse than under colonialism; i.e. the remedy was in some ways worse than the disease. But the disease remains/remained the disease. The ugly truth is that the West/North fucked-over Africa horribly for centuries, and the fallout continues to this day. Part of the fallout is widespread malnutrition and disease, which naturally (is anyone surprised? COULD anyone be surprised?) results in stunting both mentally and physically, including low population IQs.

    For a good intro to the subject of how Africa has been fucked over for generations, read Patrick Bond’s Looting Africa: The Economics of Exploitation. The full text is free, online.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FKA Max
    Thank you.

    What is your take on the influence of the Catholic Church/Vatican in Africa, in particular when it comes to birth control, etc.? http://www.population-security.org/

    White Davos Men Urge Africans to Maintain Sky High Fertility


    http://www.unz.com/comments/isteve/white-davos-men-urge-africans-to-maintain-sky-high-fertility/



    Bush birth control policies helped fuel Africa’s baby boom

    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/world/article24566695.html

    Opposition to birth control also comes from the Roman Catholic Church, the country’s largest
    [...]
    WALLACE: Well then, ironically enough one of the greatest forces against communism in the world, the Catholic Church, according to your thesis would seem to be pushing us directly into the hands of the communists because they are against birth control.

    HUXLEY: Well, I think this strange paradox probably is true. There is, er…, it’s an extraordinary situation actually. I mean, one has to look at it, of course, from a biological point of view: the whole essence of biological life on earth is a question of balance and what we’ve done is to practice death control in the most intensive manner without balancing this with birth control at the other end.
    [...]
    Melinda Gates: ‘I’m a Catholic, but women need access to contraceptives’
    [...]
    The Effects of ‘Youth Bulge’ on Civil Conflicts

    http://www.cfr.org/world/effects-youth-bulge-civil-conflicts/p13093

    Between 1970 and 1999, 80 percent of civil conflicts occurred in countries where 60 percent of the population or more were under the age of thirty, according to the PAI report. Today there are sixty-seven counties with youth bulges, of which sixty of them are experiencing social unrest and violence.
     
    - http://www.unz.com/comments/all/2016/10/14/?commenterfilter=FKA+Max

    There are about 35 million Catholics in the country[1] with six archdioceses and 41 dioceses.[138] The impact of the Roman Catholic Church in the Democratic Republic of Congo is difficult to overestimate.[!!!!!!!] Schatzberg has called it the country’s “only truly national institution apart from the state.”[139] Its schools have educated over 60% of the nation’s primary school students and more than 40% of its secondary students. The church owns and manages an extensive network of hospitals, schools, and clinics, as well as many diocesan economic enterprises, including farms, ranches, stores, and artisans’ shops.
     
    - http://www.unz.com/article/the-empire-strikes-back-the-msms-3-point-plan-to-recapture-the-narrative/#comment-1686225

    You should be more sympathetic towards the Alt Right and the HBD crowd (they are not quite the same thing, but there is much overlap), since you have much in common with them. Most of them (the intelligent ones) are against ``brain-draining'' the Third World of its most talented people and they also oppose exploiting and extracting African resources, etc., and they are in favor of birth control foreign aid to the Third World, etc.:

    There is a reason the Catholic Church opposes the Alt Right:

    Catholics Stand against Alt-Right Wrongs

    https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/catholics-stand-against-alt-right-wrongs

    The Pro-Life Temptation

    https://altright.com/2017/03/19/the-pro-life-temptation/
     
    - http://www.unz.com/forum/why-the-alt-right-loves-single-payer-health-care/#comment-1831100


    The “Latino” Oligarchy, as is often the case with Mercantile elites, is short-sighted and profit oriented. Their alliance with the Church has put in place a system that pays no heed to genetic inheritance. When the Catholic Church is in power in Latin America, whether the stronger ecclesiastical current of time is on the Right or Left, the arc of history will always lead to a country (even one as white as Argentina) that looks like Brazil or the Dominican Republic, with all of the politico-economic problems that entails.
    [...]
    This was due entirely to the influence of the Catholic hierarchy on politics. The now Pope Emeritus, Benedict XVI denounced the policy to make birth control affordable during his visit at that time. So the churches right wing makes sure the poor non-White Catholics have more children than they can care for, and the church’s Left wing keeps them in the pews through its social gospel discourse and demands that wealthy responsible White People submit to invasion by their parishioners. Just to reemphasize, the Left and Right wings of the Church are not opposing social forces, they are merely the right hand and left hand of the same dysgenic system.
     
    - https://www.counter-currents.com/2015/10/white-nationalists-need-planned-parenthood-not-the-pope/
  133. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @alan2102
    Anon:


    So even if you secretly believed....
    ...
    However assuming that secretly you do believe....
    ...
    So if you secretly believed the HBD case was true....

     

    I have no "secret beliefs". I made it PERFECTLY clear what I believe, and you cannot possibly have missed it, unless you're stupid, and I'm assuming you're not stupid. So, stop this "secretly believe" speculative bullshit and say what you have to say, whatever that may be.

    As far as remediation of low IQ is concerned, there are a bunch of options that have nothing to do with modifying gene frequencies (though gene expression would for sure be modified). The specifics of practical measures is a whole long discussion and I would rather not enter into it right now, though I have studied it in depth in years past.

    IQ probably has a genetic component, as I said in the initial post. How much of a genetic component is the question. My hunch, and I could be wrong, is: not much. But regardless, there are so many practical options for raising population IQs the world over -- there is so very much fundamental work to be done to correct the fundamental causes of poor brain development and consequent cognitive/IQ problems -- that there is no reason to directly fool with genes at all for at least a couple of generations, if even then. We have much more basic and urgent work to do.

    Some things are more important than IQ, as pointed out above by Mao Cheng Ji. What good are high IQs if they are used mostly to facilitate cheating and theft? This is an important question, but it does not justify nihilism with respect to basic fetal, infant and child care and brain development. We can and should pursue, as an axiomatic good, normal brain development, accompanied by normal IQ and cognitive development, for all children everywhere. We should engage in the fundamental work -- nutrition, health care, environmental cleanup, etc. -- that assures same. We know what to do. The science is clear enough.

    I have no “secret beliefs”. I made it PERFECTLY clear what I believe, and you cannot possibly have missed it, unless you’re stupid, and I’m assuming you’re not stupid.

    That’s what I thought.

    from an earlier post

    …lead poisoning in Africa…high-fluoride drinking water (powerful goitrogen, iodine antagonist). Also a vast amount of iron deficiency…iodine deficiency, often responsible for lowering IQ by 10 points or more. Also a great deal of selenium deficiency; selenium being essential to thyroid hormone utilization (i.e. “iodine utilization”, to put it briefly); selenium deficit is the probable cause of cretinism — profound IQ loss (like, scores of points)…

    Cool. Personally all I ask from SJWs who can’t or won’t accept the genetic aspect (at least publicly) is they focus on biological solutions rather than the 60 years of sociological nonsense about pre-school, stereotype threat etc that will never work.

    It’s biological.

    What good are high IQs if they are used mostly to facilitate cheating and theft?

    No argument there. I’m personally more interested in raising the IQ of the left side of the Bell curve out of the “running with scissors” range as that’s where the consequences of low IQ are at their most bloody – particularly for the kids.

    Read More
    • Replies: @alan2102

    Personally all I ask from SJWs who can’t or won’t accept the genetic aspect (at least publicly) is they focus on biological solutions rather than the 60 years of sociological nonsense about pre-school, stereotype threat etc that will never work. It’s biological.
     
    The "sociological nonsense" like preschool programs, anti-poverty programs, etc., ARE biological and make a modest contribution to the desired outcomes. They exert effects that are ultimately biological. For example, by reducing poverty, improving neighborhoods and other "sociological nonsense", we reduce stress and cortisol levels. Cortisol (HPA axis activation) has a substantial impact on brain development and IQ, particularly fluid intelligence; cortisol in excess literally causes brain ATROPHY. Such programs are good and necessary, but they are not sufficient. They are weak, and need to be combined with other, more powerful technics.

    In the course of work along these lines we will no doubt discover interesting complementarities and synergies; like, say, reduced stress COMBINED with improved omega-3 fatty acid nutrition COMBINED with zeroing-out exposure to goitrogens might be found to have a gratifying synergistic impact on brain development and, ultimately, IQ. This is a fertile field for research, which could easily go on for a century or more before we have good answers. The research has not even begun.
  134. @Johan Meyer
    G is mostly biological capacity and speed to correctly identify patterns. The paper to which I linked may be interpreted in this framework, on its author's terms, as saying that biological pattern recognition capacity dominates variation in IQ at lower IQs, but that learned pattern recognition dominates at higher IQs. Have you ever worked with pattern recognition and neural networks? They are widely used to recognise patterns that do not necessarily fit trivial mathematical forms. Neural networks must be trained with data conforming to the pattern and not conforming to the data to successfully discriminate the pattern in data. For many patterns, education may play that role when raw biological computational power does not suffice to give a large portion of the population the ability to discriminate a given set of patterns.

    The paper to which I linked may be interpreted in this framework, on its author’s terms, as saying that biological pattern recognition capacity dominates variation in IQ at lower IQs, but that learned pattern recognition dominates at higher IQs

    Yes i understand now. Basically lower IQ people have basal capacity to pattern recognition but higher IQ people already have the capacity to recognize complex/abstract patterns… because they are better to learn more of this complex things and tend to advance more based on this previous learnings.

    Basically, metaphorically speaking, we have a ladder. Lower IQ people tend to reach only the first step of this ladder while Higher IQ people have the capacity and usually reach many/more steps of this [convergent] ladder.

    If i finally understand well.

    For many patterns, education may play that role when raw biological computational power does not suffice to give a large portion of the population the ability to discriminate a given set of patterns.

    Do you could give some example about it*

    Play that role in lower IQ people*

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johan Meyer
    About education, it is patterns that are not automatically accessible to higher IQ people---lower IQ are already excluded, as that basal pattern recognition is needed to learn and apply the more abstract and generalisable (math) and more specific (science) algorithms of pattern recognition. Only those with already substantial intelligence should be able to escape biological limitations of g, and then only partially.
  135. @Santoculto
    I think you are confusing social class with lead poisoning

    Because they tend to be poor, governments, specially in the past, with ZERO echological and social conscience, has transferred hard industries to the poor neighborhoods. So we have a association of three variables: [already existent] avg lower intelligence/lack of control impulse, black ethnicity and comparatively higher exposition to industrial toxicity.

    http://www.healthline.com/health/lead-poisoning#prevention8

    If most blacks [whatever the place they are**] are constantly presenting these symptoms, then we are actually talking about something closer to what you have advocated here.

    ''We'' must prove that

    is really happening/happened a epidemic lead poisoning;

    that lead poisoning [in higher levels of contamination] reduce intelligence [''aka'' IQ] as zika virus cause microcephaly,

    that this reduction of intelligence will persists...


    I'm born and live in place where levels of lead poisoning has been lower and still i see the same white-black-whatever discrepancies in intelligence...

    The cognitive and psychological discrepancies are not local phenomena, it's general, generalized, whatever place people are.


    I'm understanding your thinking lines, you are saying basically that ''lead poisoning is one of the responsible for lower intelligence/aggressive behavior of blacks, on avg''... so ''no there such thing innate lower black intelligence, it's environmental AND by racist reasons''.

    Indeed poor people has been neglected about some basic rights throughout the human history but i think even all social injustice they have suffered, they are not poor only because the evil rich but because they born with lower intelligence and impulse controls, this factors make them vulnerable to the predation or parasitism of evil clever people.

    London population has been exposed for very higher pollution levels since a long time, whatever social classes, even because London city is quite demographically populated and not with bigger size but is not everyone who have their intelligence levels reduced...

    In the end, i'm trying to understand what's going on and yes, based on what i see here where i live, blacks are not less smarter and more prone to violent behavior because evil white men but because themselves.

    And leftists tend to be extremely stubborn/intelectually arrogant, hypocritical, dissimulated and ignorant about human behavior.

    What do you think about en masse immigration to the western countries*

    Answer this question, please.

    Even, in this case you're right, ''you'' already have a historical of lies, dissimulations and stupid theories, for example, the so-called ''gender theory''.

    My view is let the chips fall where they may. However, I do notice general ignorance (left and right, including among advocates for lead removal) a very large ignorance about lead poisoning realities (distribution of poisoning e.g. geographical, biomechanics e.g. wrt placenta, blood brain barrier etc).

    You say that your region has had lower poisoning—prior to leaded gasoline phaseout, what was the geometric mean blood lead level, and post-phaseout, what proportion of the infant population had bll above 10microgram per decilitre? In the sporadic poisoning regime, that number may be roughly multiplied by ten to get actual poisoning.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    I understand that external signs of harsh lead proportion in the air and in the ground are based on number of heavy industry in the region and in my region, where i was born and where i actually live at least in terms of number of heavy industry and atmospheric pollution has been lower than in other places. For example, lower than in big brazilian cities, no doubt.

    You know to the positive diagnosis of lead poisoning is need people have correlate symptoms as well in medical exams.

    Do you believe blacks are, on avg, innately less smart than whites*
  136. @alan2102
    Anonymous White Male:


    “As for the “left’s narrative of universal equality”, do you mean the strange, unjustifiable idea that society should seek fairness and opportunity for all? Almighty God, Forbid It!”

    Yes, fairness for all is unjustifiable. Why? You cannot achieve it.

     

    I said nothing about achieving it. I said society "should SEEK fairness". I write precisely what I mean. All you have to do is read.

    True that abstract values like fairness can never be achieved. But that's fine. Abstractions are abstractions; they serve their purpose of inspiring, motivating, energizing. That's good enough. It is enough to SEEK. We SEEK beauty, and justice, and other abstract things. We are transformed for the better in the seeking, coming closer to our ideal, but never achieving it. That is OK. It is enough to SEEK.

    If decent human beings have any say, society will SEEK fairness, and in the process, will improve itself as it moves toward greater fairness.

    Your protestations -- "life is not fair!", "no society ever has or ever will" -- are technically correct, but miss the point and are therefore rubbish.


    you don’t really want opportunity for all. You want equal RESULTS for all.

     

    No I don't. I love diversity of outcome. Equal (or as close as we can reasonably get to equal) opportunity, and wild diversity of outcome, including great diversity of income and wealth. Like, say, some people FIVE TIMES as rich as others. Maybe even TEN TIMES. WILD, WILD DIVERSITY. That's my thing.

    You're just lashing out ignorantly and mouthing stale right-wing talking points because... because... well, I don't know! Because it feels good? Because it makes your dick hard? I really don't know.

    “For example, you cannot now lynch blacks, and you can’t let loose your inner bigot and yell “nigger!” at a black person anymore, whereas 60 years ago you could.”

    This is what I was speaking of, dim bulb. You don’t remember typing this? I guess you can’t make the appropriate connections in your argument. Not surprising. Your argument consists of regurgitating feelings and somehow believing that wasting everyone’s time running around with your head cut off accomplishes anything except alienating half or more of the population. The things you stand for were rejected in the last election. I’m not implying that elections are anything other than bread and circuses. I am saying that the productive people of the world are sick of trying to pursue your goals, which have ZERO percent chance of being realized. And this is the difference between thinking and feeling people. Thinking people know that utopia cannot be achieved and you don’t get extra points from the universe for believing that just clapping will bring back Tinkerbell. We see that society should function as smoothly as possible. It should “work”. Nations should not waste time an effort fixing something that can’t be fixed. Something that can’t be fixed is not a problem. It is fools like yourself that make it a never ending problem, one that requires more and more money spent on something that will never disappear. Let’s look at the following statement:

    “That’s what the phrase “general intelligence” does: it implies human potential in all domains. Does not quite state it, so there is plausible deniability (just barely), but strongly implies it.”

    So, general intelligence implies human potential in all domains? Obviously you need to make this statement because of the fact that it doesn’t. The definition of “general intelligence”, also known as g factor, refers to the existence of a broad mental capacity that influences performance on cognitive ability measures. Nothing about human potential. You made the connection because you cannot argue about IQ based on the facts, so you have to bring in your childish attempt to discredit it. Can’t have IQ or g factor showing that negroes are not as well equipped.

    Look, I can deal with your lies, misrepresentations, childish feelings, ad hominems, and non-existent logic on a point-by-point basis. But, it takes up space on the server and serves no real purpose. You are beyond reason. You exist in a make believe universe with no natural laws, just changeable feelings. Everything you believe is based on lies and false assumptions. You don’t even realize that every time a government takes on a “problem” that only your ilk sees as a problem, they don’t do it because they are well meaning. They do it because it forces the productive people of a nation to borrow money into existence to take care of this insolvable problem. And once started, it will never be stopped because the problem can’t be solved. You are a fool and delusional. You are a slave and you want everyone to be a slave, not a successful person.

    Oh, and you never answered. Are you black? I find blacks and women get the angriest about IQ discussions because deep down, they know intelligence is real and some people and races have more.

    Read More
  137. @alan2102

    So, the left is the representative of every decent human being, eh?

     

    No. But there is a rough correlation.

    How are you any different than Catholic churchmen that knew what the truth was and had no problem with burning people at the stake

     

    That's an easy one. I don't advocate burning people at the stake. That's how I am different. I also don't advocate a LONG list of other things which amount to the equivalent -- in terms of collective injustice, cruelty, and so on -- of burning people at the stake. I suspect that I am different from you in that regard.


    You’re just another self-righteous prick that assumes the moral superiority of your religion

     

    You're right. I assume the moral superiority of decency, fairness, justice, and the like. I am a total prick about those things. I also assume the moral superiority of kindness to children and animals, and I am a total prick about those things, too. Insufferably self-righteous.

    If only the world could be rid of busybody do-gooder leftists like me, so that we could bring back chattel slavery, prejudicial scapegoating, cruelty to animals, child labor, public torture, and ALL the wonderful stuff from the good old days!


    The left will squeal that communism didn’t work because it was not done right

     

    Communism DID work to raise hundreds of millions out of serfdom and miserable poverty, and to extend life expectancies dramatically.


    only black suffering is important to your self-righteous narrative.

     

    As I made clear up thread, white suffering is very important to me. Race and racial supremacism, while important, are secondary matters. Class is primary.

    Oh, and “nigger”. This is just a word. I’m sorry, but for blacks and their apologists, this somehow justifies theft, rape, and murder.

     

    What in the hell are you talking about?


    The truth is that the black race is a parasite that can only glom onto a host to live a first world life.

     

    Good gracious mercy me. I did not know the Stormfront crowd had arrived. But I should not be surprised. They swarm in whenever the door is opened a crack. Show me a "race realist" or "hbd" site, and I will show you a mob of rabid Nazi hangers-on. It goes with the territory.

    [SNIP the rest of "Anonymous White Male"s semi-coherent, inconsistent, largely irrelevant, racist, low-IQ rant]

    Since you do not have the debate skills to use reasoned argument, I am just going to point out to all the others reading this what your position encompasses. You are Stan/Loretta. This sketch is a good analogy of what you “want” to believe.

    JUDITH: I do feel, Reg, that any Anti-Imperialist group like ours must reflect such a divergence of interests within its power-base.

    REG: Agreed. Francis?

    FRANCIS: Yeah. I think Judith’s point of view is very valid, Reg, provided the Movement never forgets that it is the inalienable right of every man–

    STAN: Or woman.

    FRANCIS: Or woman… to rid himself–

    STAN: Or herself.

    [MORE]

    FRANCIS: Or herself.

    REG: Agreed.

    FRANCIS: Thank you, brother.

    STAN: Or sister.

    FRANCIS: Or sister. Where was I?

    REG: I think you’d finished.

    FRANCIS: Oh. Right.

    REG: Furthermore, it is the birthright of every man–

    STAN: Or woman.

    REG: Why don’t you shut up about women, Stan. You’re putting us off.

    STAN: Women have a perfect right to play a part in our movement, Reg.

    FRANCIS: Why are you always on about women, Stan?

    STAN: I want to be one.

    REG: What?

    STAN: I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me ‘Loretta’.

    REG: What?!

    LORETTA: It’s my right as a man.

    JUDITH: Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?

    LORETTA: I want to have babies.

    REG: You want to have babies?!

    LORETTA: It’s every man’s right to have babies if he wants them.

    REG: But… you can’t have babies.

    LORETTA: Don’t you oppress me.

    REG: I’m not oppressing you, Stan. You haven’t got a womb! Where’s the foetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!

    LORETTA: crying

    JUDITH: Here! I– I’ve got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can’t actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody’s fault, not even the Romans’, but that he can have the right to have babies.

    FRANCIS: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister. Sorry.

    REG: What’s the point?

    FRANCIS: What?

    REG: What’s the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can’t have babies?!

    FRANCIS: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.

    REG: Symbolic of his struggle against reality.

    Read More
  138. @alan2102


    If the IQ gap between Europe and sub Saharan Africa were primarily due to lead

     

    Who on earth ever has, or ever would, make such a preposterous assertion?


    Unless and until an environmental scientific account can explain the ethnic distribution of IQ in full, one will not have falsified the ethnic genetic hypothesis

     

    Perhaps, if said falsification is anyone's goal. It isn't mine. I think genes probably have some modest influence. But it is not terribly important, for reasons I mentioned up thread.

    and a premature effort at falsification is distraction from a larger and more important task of addressing the understood environmental problems

     

    I agree about "larger and more important task", but I don't think the distraction is that great. Maybe I am wrong. Why do you say what you say? Convince me that I am wrong.

    The reason I feel it is a very harmful distraction is because there is a critical mass of IQ researchers (the Human Biodiversity crowd) that has an immense interest in the matter. If they can be convinced to substantially test viable environmental models, it can force the hands of governments in poor countries. The leadership of the poor countries tend to believe in white supremacy, so if an account, however incomplete, of environmentally induced white supremacy can be given, especially from a white source, those rotters can be forced into action.

    Read More
    • Replies: @alan2102

    The reason I feel it is a very harmful distraction is because there is a critical mass of IQ researchers (the Human Biodiversity crowd) that has an immense interest in the matter. If they can be convinced to substantially test viable environmental models, it can force the hands of governments in poor countries.
     
    1. The HBD crowd has no power and no influence. Which is good. They don't deserve to have any power or influence. They've failed to police themselves, failed to expunge the Nazi and allied toxic elements from their ranks. They've put themselves in an untenable position, and the untenability is deserved. It is not so much that they are wrong, scientifically; it is that they have failed to construct the appropriate cordon sanitaire around their field, screening-out the scum. So, they are now getting what they deserve: obscurity, dismissal and censure.

    2. No one's hands need to be forced. It is not like that, not a power play thing. It is a general development thing, an economic latitude thing, and a persuasion thing. It is difficult to make environmental changes, and it requires general development, as well as programmatic and administrative funding and persistence.

    For one small example: there are hundreds of salt companies in Pakistan. To achieve total iodization of salt in Pakistan, alone, is a big project. An office must be set up and staffed, the program/regulations need to be economically reasonable for the subject salt companies, there needs to be good followup and testing to ensure compliance, and so on. Further, once such a program is established, it has to be maintained, for decades, which is not a trivial matter. Programs such as iodization programs are often set up and then, for various reasons (usually budget-related) they are partially or entirely disbanded, and things go back to the pre-program state. Get the picture?

    Doing this kind of stuff is a big, long-term deal. My example is of just ONE thing (iodine) in ONE country. Multiple that by a couple dozen factors (not just iodine, but iron, and goitrogens, and omega-3 fatty acids, and environmental lead and mercury and PCBs, and lots of other IQ-relevant things) and then multiply THAT by scores of countries.

    In sum, it is a GREAT BIG HONKIN' DEAL, a huge long-term project, which requires funding, organization and persistence, probably under the aegis of an institution of the general character and reach of the United Nations, in a wide variety of cultural and political contexts, over decades. See? BIG, BIG DEAL. Not at all a simple matter of "forcing their hands".

    The HBD crowd will have no role and no influence in the century-long global project that ultimately results in the environmental and human developmental outcomes that, themselves, ultimately result in higher population IQs. One of the reasons for this (apart from what I already mentioned, above) is that the HBD crowd is far, far too obsessed with the narrow matter of IQ, when the real problems that the world faces -- i.e. that the human family and that the human project in general faces -- are broad environmental and human developmental ones. IQ is simply one "side effect", albeit an important one (IMO). The proper emphasis is on general development, rather than narrow obsession with a cognitive measure.
  139. alan2102 says:
    @utu

    "The specifics of practical measures is a whole long discussion and I would rather not enter into it right now, though I have studied it in depth in years past."
     
    I am sure you can suggest some reading material. Publications...

    "We know what to do. The science is clear enough."
     
    Again, publications, please.

    I am sure you can suggest some reading material. Publications…

    I would love to, but I’m no longer in the business. I moved on.

    Years ago, around 2003-2010, I undertook a detailed study of this stuff — environmental, nutritional and related influences on brain development and IQ. My intention was to write a book on the subject. I was shocked by how much stuff was being ignored by the (so-called) “race realists”, and by how studied was their ignorance. I mean, for “realists” who supposedly had a passionate interest in IQ and influences on IQ, it was amazing how they apparently had never lifted a finger to learn about the many and sometimes profound influences on IQ! My intention was to remedy that.

    But, several things kept me from completing the project. For one, it is a LOT of work, since there is such a large literature on these subjects, and most of it is scattered; composing and organizing it all is a massive task, and an UNPAID task. I am not rich, or a tenured professor, or someone working on a comfortable stipend. Also, I am not the best person to do the job, not having the best qualifications (to put it mildly! high school dropout autodidact). Also, to some extent I lost interest as I came to realize that the whole “race realism” thing was largely a tempest in a teapot. At the time (and occasionally even now! see my fiery posts up thread) I felt like I had to fight the ugly tide of right-wingery associated with “race realism”. But the truth is that I don’t, because “race realism” has no power or influence and is not going anywhere. The great majority of people reject it — sometimes for poor reasons, but reject it they do, anyway. They sense its toxic (Stormfront-type) associations and they recoil in horror, as they should. So it is really not something that urgently calls for my activist efforts. “Race realism” will sputter along, impotently, for decades, but never go anywhere. Aside from a small coterie of rather dumb barely-literate Nazis (like AWM, here), no one is paying attention. Which is good.

    Anyway, that’s my story. Sorry I can’t give you a quick-’n-easy list of links to back up what I said. I should probably comb through the many megabytes of material, and many hundreds of citations, that I stored on disk, and come up with some kind of partial presentation (shy of the book that I intended, but at least something). That would be a good thing to do. If I get a month or so free, and some ambition for it, I might just do it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu

    But, several things kept me from completing the project. For one, it is a LOT of work, since there is such a large literature on these subjects, and most of it is scattered; composing and organizing it all is a massive task, and an UNPAID task.
     
    So you are lazy person with strong ideological beliefs.

    not having the best qualifications (to put it mildly! high school dropout autodidact)
     
    That shows plus some personality disorder. Are you sure you are getting right micro elements balance in your diet?
  140. @alan2102
    Santoculto:


    You are generalizing

     

    Yes, of course I am. That's what all of us do, almost all of the time. We do it because it is a very useful and indispensable technique.


    Regular right wing people believe in the hard working and meritocracy

     

    Not really. They SAY they do. But they are almost invariably in the "born on third and think they hit a triple" group. There might be rare exceptions, but so what? What I say is generally true, and that's good enough. In discussions with right-wingers I note that there is a complete absence of any awareness of the empirical work on social mobility and "meritocracy" -- which clearly shows that the idea of meritocracy is largely rubbish. It is simply one of their cherished myths -- one of the comfortable and comforting lies that they tell themselves. They must tell themselves such lies because the truth would be far too painful for them to face.


    explain me the existence of super-rich leftist celebrities**

     

    There are no super-rich leftists. That is a contradiction in terms. Some rich celebrities support one or other pet "progressive" cause, but that does not make them leftists. Money perverts people and turns them into right-wing assholes, in nearly 100% of cases. There might be rare exceptions, but so what? What I say is generally true, and that is good enough. Leonardo DeCaprio is "concerned" about climate change, while he flies his private jet around the world. Fuck him. He is a right-wing asshole, barely different from the Koch brothers. You cannot atone for your right-wing assholery by a few pious statements of "concern", or even by writing big checks to the relevant NGOs. Sorry.


    En masse immigration to the european countries blaming current living white people for all sins is fair* or just revenge*

     

    What is important is the CAUSE if massive immigration. It was caused by right-wing assholes, pursuing policies that destroyed economies and cultures such that immigration to the West/North is the only route to a better life. You'll note I said it was "caused by right-wing assholes", NOT that it was caused by "current living white people". It so happens that most of said right-wing assholes ARE white, but that is not important. As far as the currently living generation is concerned, that's largely incidental. They could just as easily be black, or any other color. Or they could be women. Margaret Thatcher, Hillary Clinton, Condi Rice, and many others -- all right-wing assholes. Your IDENTITY as a black, a latino, a woman, etc., does not atone for your right-wing assholery, either.


    I agree that in the recent past western societies was not good for many people namely in the ”minorities’ but also for, maybe, majority of people who wasn’t white/OR jewish, OR/rich and powerful.

     

    Indeed. Life sucked for most white people, too. Poor and working-class whites had it bad. White slavery was a real and terrible thing. Do not mistake what I am saying as a buy-in to the racial reductionistic narrative that locates the blame for everything on whites. That's not the case, and is not at all what I believe. White supremacy has been responsible for a ton of atrocities and outrages, but it is not responsible for everything, not even close.


    Right wing have A LOT OF good points. They are just like soldier sentinels.... [they] detect dangers, specially foreign dangers

     

    True. If you're in a survival situation, you had best have some of those reptilian qualities. But then, 99.9% of us live, 99.9% of the time, in situations where those qualities are at best useless, and at worst destructive.


    Most reasonable people whatever their ideological positions believe that corrupt ones must be jailed

     

    The issue is not whether or not you believe that "corrupt ones must be jailed", because of course EVERYONE believes that. The issue is WHAT YOU CAN SEE; specifically, what corruption and criminality you are capable of seeing. Most people, for example, do not see that the prison-industrial complex is a gigantic immoral and criminal enterprise that should be dismantled immediately. Most people do not see this because they are in the grip of a right-wing mass media and right-wing education, and are deluged with right-wing propaganda day in and day out, with almost never any serious critique.


    Charles Murray is not racist firstly because he married a non-white non-Jewish woman

     

    Irrelevant. Instances of retail interpersonal non-bigotry are quite cheap and count for little. The real action is in the ideas that you propagate, the institutions you support, the ways you obtain and spend money. You cannot atone for your right-wing assholery by marrying a non-white, especially an asian, or by having a few non-white friends, especially asians. I know that right-wing assholes would LOVE to believe otherwise, and I'm sorry to disappoint them.

    Yes, of course I am. That’s what all of us do, almost all of the time. We do it because it is a very useful and indispensable technique.

    Specially when it’s against your enemy isn’t* ;)

    Yes, we tend to generalize a lot, BUT it’s smart stop to do it, at least, after to have good reasons to do it.

    Not really. They SAY they do. But they are almost invariably in the “born on third and think they hit a triple” group. There might be rare exceptions, but so what? What I say is generally true, and that’s good enough. In discussions with right-wingers I note that there is a complete absence of any awareness of the empirical work on social mobility and “meritocracy” — which clearly shows that the idea of meritocracy is largely rubbish. It is simply one of their cherished myths — one of the comfortable and comforting lies that they tell themselves. They must tell themselves such lies because the truth would be far too painful for them to face.

    So you’re basing yourself on your discussions with rightists?

    There are different types of rightists, i still think you can’t simply generalize them as if they were all the same.

    What i said.

    You deserve what you plant.

    If you’re clever enough to become super rich using the flaws or even the windows of the system so you deserve it.

    Rightism is mostly about self-responsibility. This explain why they tend to be nasty with ”loser” people, for example, with homeless people.

    [New] Leftism is mostly about responsibility of governors over the governed [at its surface, for sure, ;) ].

    Most rightist people, seems, are very hard working [believe in it at the point to engage themselves] and they work expecting be rewarded [they are more competitive, believe in meritocracy].

    There are no super-rich leftists. That is a contradiction in terms. Some rich celebrities support one or other pet “progressive” cause, but that does not make them leftists.

    Hillary is other example of fake leftist*

    Money perverts people and turns them into right-wing assholes, in nearly 100% of cases.

    OK.

    right is 100% evil,
    left is 100% good.

    There might be rare exceptions, but so what? What I say is generally true, and that is good enough. Leonardo DeCaprio is “concerned” about climate change, while he flies his private jet around the world. Fuck him. He is a right-wing asshole, barely different from the Koch brothers. You cannot atone for your right-wing assholery by a few pious statements of “concern”, or even by writing big checks to the relevant NGOs. Sorry.

    I think the terms ”right” and ”left wing”, even they have their validations, are old fashioned, evem because a lot of people ”on the right” and ”on the left” have more similarities than differences. The bigger confront is between vitalists and materialists.

    Materialistic people enphasizes ”material goods” over ”vital/life goods”, aka, humans or living beings. Money, a big house, a big and sophisticated car, are more important for them than other lifes.

    Vitalistic people enphasizes ”vital goods” over ”material goods”, and they are obviously right because we are talking about a inanimate objects and real living beings.

    Maybe you’re right that most of this celebrities and politicians {most of them} who are super rich are not truly ”left wingers”, concerned about social justice, but why most of leftists don’t think like you*

    Read More
  141. @Santoculto

    The paper to which I linked may be interpreted in this framework, on its author’s terms, as saying that biological pattern recognition capacity dominates variation in IQ at lower IQs, but that learned pattern recognition dominates at higher IQs
     
    Yes i understand now. Basically lower IQ people have basal capacity to pattern recognition but higher IQ people already have the capacity to recognize complex/abstract patterns... because they are better to learn more of this complex things and tend to advance more based on this previous learnings.

    Basically, metaphorically speaking, we have a ladder. Lower IQ people tend to reach only the first step of this ladder while Higher IQ people have the capacity and usually reach many/more steps of this [convergent] ladder.

    If i finally understand well.

    For many patterns, education may play that role when raw biological computational power does not suffice to give a large portion of the population the ability to discriminate a given set of patterns.
     
    Do you could give some example about it*

    Play that role in lower IQ people*

    About education, it is patterns that are not automatically accessible to higher IQ people—lower IQ are already excluded, as that basal pattern recognition is needed to learn and apply the more abstract and generalisable (math) and more specific (science) algorithms of pattern recognition. Only those with already substantial intelligence should be able to escape biological limitations of g, and then only partially.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto

    Only those with already substantial intelligence should be able to escape biological limitations of g, and then only partially.
     
    Are you talking about creativity here*
  142. @alan2102
    Santoculto:


    You are generalizing

     

    Yes, of course I am. That's what all of us do, almost all of the time. We do it because it is a very useful and indispensable technique.


    Regular right wing people believe in the hard working and meritocracy

     

    Not really. They SAY they do. But they are almost invariably in the "born on third and think they hit a triple" group. There might be rare exceptions, but so what? What I say is generally true, and that's good enough. In discussions with right-wingers I note that there is a complete absence of any awareness of the empirical work on social mobility and "meritocracy" -- which clearly shows that the idea of meritocracy is largely rubbish. It is simply one of their cherished myths -- one of the comfortable and comforting lies that they tell themselves. They must tell themselves such lies because the truth would be far too painful for them to face.


    explain me the existence of super-rich leftist celebrities**

     

    There are no super-rich leftists. That is a contradiction in terms. Some rich celebrities support one or other pet "progressive" cause, but that does not make them leftists. Money perverts people and turns them into right-wing assholes, in nearly 100% of cases. There might be rare exceptions, but so what? What I say is generally true, and that is good enough. Leonardo DeCaprio is "concerned" about climate change, while he flies his private jet around the world. Fuck him. He is a right-wing asshole, barely different from the Koch brothers. You cannot atone for your right-wing assholery by a few pious statements of "concern", or even by writing big checks to the relevant NGOs. Sorry.


    En masse immigration to the european countries blaming current living white people for all sins is fair* or just revenge*

     

    What is important is the CAUSE if massive immigration. It was caused by right-wing assholes, pursuing policies that destroyed economies and cultures such that immigration to the West/North is the only route to a better life. You'll note I said it was "caused by right-wing assholes", NOT that it was caused by "current living white people". It so happens that most of said right-wing assholes ARE white, but that is not important. As far as the currently living generation is concerned, that's largely incidental. They could just as easily be black, or any other color. Or they could be women. Margaret Thatcher, Hillary Clinton, Condi Rice, and many others -- all right-wing assholes. Your IDENTITY as a black, a latino, a woman, etc., does not atone for your right-wing assholery, either.


    I agree that in the recent past western societies was not good for many people namely in the ”minorities’ but also for, maybe, majority of people who wasn’t white/OR jewish, OR/rich and powerful.

     

    Indeed. Life sucked for most white people, too. Poor and working-class whites had it bad. White slavery was a real and terrible thing. Do not mistake what I am saying as a buy-in to the racial reductionistic narrative that locates the blame for everything on whites. That's not the case, and is not at all what I believe. White supremacy has been responsible for a ton of atrocities and outrages, but it is not responsible for everything, not even close.


    Right wing have A LOT OF good points. They are just like soldier sentinels.... [they] detect dangers, specially foreign dangers

     

    True. If you're in a survival situation, you had best have some of those reptilian qualities. But then, 99.9% of us live, 99.9% of the time, in situations where those qualities are at best useless, and at worst destructive.


    Most reasonable people whatever their ideological positions believe that corrupt ones must be jailed

     

    The issue is not whether or not you believe that "corrupt ones must be jailed", because of course EVERYONE believes that. The issue is WHAT YOU CAN SEE; specifically, what corruption and criminality you are capable of seeing. Most people, for example, do not see that the prison-industrial complex is a gigantic immoral and criminal enterprise that should be dismantled immediately. Most people do not see this because they are in the grip of a right-wing mass media and right-wing education, and are deluged with right-wing propaganda day in and day out, with almost never any serious critique.


    Charles Murray is not racist firstly because he married a non-white non-Jewish woman

     

    Irrelevant. Instances of retail interpersonal non-bigotry are quite cheap and count for little. The real action is in the ideas that you propagate, the institutions you support, the ways you obtain and spend money. You cannot atone for your right-wing assholery by marrying a non-white, especially an asian, or by having a few non-white friends, especially asians. I know that right-wing assholes would LOVE to believe otherwise, and I'm sorry to disappoint them.

    What is important is the CAUSE if massive immigration. It was caused by right-wing assholes, pursuing policies that destroyed economies and cultures such that immigration to the West/North is the only route to a better life. You’ll note I said it was “caused by right-wing assholes”, NOT that it was caused by “current living white people”. It so happens that most of said right-wing assholes ARE white, but that is not important. As far as the currently living generation is concerned, that’s largely incidental. They could just as easily be black, or any other color. Or they could be women. Margaret Thatcher, Hillary Clinton, Condi Rice, and many others — all right-wing assholes. Your IDENTITY as a black, a latino, a woman, etc., does not atone for your right-wing assholery, either.

    Yes, but

    - policy of open borders (left wing);

    - ”brainwashing” the new generations of theory of nonexistence of human races ((left wing));

    - white guilty ”brainwashing” (((left wing)))

    just this examples, happened a lot to this very problematic situation in the west.

    So almost of this people who advocate for white racism, multiculturalism and nonexistence of human races are indeed right wing assholes**

    Read More
  143. @alan2102
    Santoculto:


    You are generalizing

     

    Yes, of course I am. That's what all of us do, almost all of the time. We do it because it is a very useful and indispensable technique.


    Regular right wing people believe in the hard working and meritocracy

     

    Not really. They SAY they do. But they are almost invariably in the "born on third and think they hit a triple" group. There might be rare exceptions, but so what? What I say is generally true, and that's good enough. In discussions with right-wingers I note that there is a complete absence of any awareness of the empirical work on social mobility and "meritocracy" -- which clearly shows that the idea of meritocracy is largely rubbish. It is simply one of their cherished myths -- one of the comfortable and comforting lies that they tell themselves. They must tell themselves such lies because the truth would be far too painful for them to face.


    explain me the existence of super-rich leftist celebrities**

     

    There are no super-rich leftists. That is a contradiction in terms. Some rich celebrities support one or other pet "progressive" cause, but that does not make them leftists. Money perverts people and turns them into right-wing assholes, in nearly 100% of cases. There might be rare exceptions, but so what? What I say is generally true, and that is good enough. Leonardo DeCaprio is "concerned" about climate change, while he flies his private jet around the world. Fuck him. He is a right-wing asshole, barely different from the Koch brothers. You cannot atone for your right-wing assholery by a few pious statements of "concern", or even by writing big checks to the relevant NGOs. Sorry.


    En masse immigration to the european countries blaming current living white people for all sins is fair* or just revenge*

     

    What is important is the CAUSE if massive immigration. It was caused by right-wing assholes, pursuing policies that destroyed economies and cultures such that immigration to the West/North is the only route to a better life. You'll note I said it was "caused by right-wing assholes", NOT that it was caused by "current living white people". It so happens that most of said right-wing assholes ARE white, but that is not important. As far as the currently living generation is concerned, that's largely incidental. They could just as easily be black, or any other color. Or they could be women. Margaret Thatcher, Hillary Clinton, Condi Rice, and many others -- all right-wing assholes. Your IDENTITY as a black, a latino, a woman, etc., does not atone for your right-wing assholery, either.


    I agree that in the recent past western societies was not good for many people namely in the ”minorities’ but also for, maybe, majority of people who wasn’t white/OR jewish, OR/rich and powerful.

     

    Indeed. Life sucked for most white people, too. Poor and working-class whites had it bad. White slavery was a real and terrible thing. Do not mistake what I am saying as a buy-in to the racial reductionistic narrative that locates the blame for everything on whites. That's not the case, and is not at all what I believe. White supremacy has been responsible for a ton of atrocities and outrages, but it is not responsible for everything, not even close.


    Right wing have A LOT OF good points. They are just like soldier sentinels.... [they] detect dangers, specially foreign dangers

     

    True. If you're in a survival situation, you had best have some of those reptilian qualities. But then, 99.9% of us live, 99.9% of the time, in situations where those qualities are at best useless, and at worst destructive.


    Most reasonable people whatever their ideological positions believe that corrupt ones must be jailed

     

    The issue is not whether or not you believe that "corrupt ones must be jailed", because of course EVERYONE believes that. The issue is WHAT YOU CAN SEE; specifically, what corruption and criminality you are capable of seeing. Most people, for example, do not see that the prison-industrial complex is a gigantic immoral and criminal enterprise that should be dismantled immediately. Most people do not see this because they are in the grip of a right-wing mass media and right-wing education, and are deluged with right-wing propaganda day in and day out, with almost never any serious critique.


    Charles Murray is not racist firstly because he married a non-white non-Jewish woman

     

    Irrelevant. Instances of retail interpersonal non-bigotry are quite cheap and count for little. The real action is in the ideas that you propagate, the institutions you support, the ways you obtain and spend money. You cannot atone for your right-wing assholery by marrying a non-white, especially an asian, or by having a few non-white friends, especially asians. I know that right-wing assholes would LOVE to believe otherwise, and I'm sorry to disappoint them.

    Indeed. Life sucked for most white people, too. Poor and working-class whites had it bad. White slavery was a real and terrible thing. Do not mistake what I am saying as a buy-in to the racial reductionistic narrative that locates the blame for everything on whites. That’s not the case, and is not at all what I believe. White supremacy has been responsible for a ton of atrocities and outrages, but it is not responsible for everything, not even close.

    I know about working classe whites. How english workers were [ab]used specially during the first and second period of industrial revolution. I mostly agree in this part.

    I believe there are tons of superiority, equivalence and inferiority about everything in the world, even between races, even this scenarios can change completely and now who is the predator can become the prey, but i think when you recognize important superior aspect of yourself in comparison to other people, you don’t legimitate you to do what you want with this people.

    True. If you’re in a survival situation, you had best have some of those reptilian qualities. But then, 99.9% of us live, 99.9% of the time, in situations where those qualities are at best useless, and at worst destructive.

    I think to the castle be safe enough for us don’t worry about our own survive, sentinels are extremely important to protect us/the castle.

    Unfortunately the same predator detector skills that remain ”the castle” safe tend to make sentinels more insensitive about other important issues.

    The issue is not whether or not you believe that “corrupt ones must be jailed”, because of course EVERYONE believes that. The issue is WHAT YOU CAN SEE; specifically, what corruption and criminality you are capable of seeing. Most people, for example, do not see that the prison-industrial complex is a gigantic immoral and criminal enterprise that should be dismantled immediately. Most people do not see this because they are in the grip of a right-wing mass media and right-wing education, and are deluged with right-wing propaganda day in and day out, with almost never any serious critique.

    Why prison-industrial complex must be dismantled**

    Do you believe most of prisoners are innocent*

    Read More
    • Replies: @alan2102

    Why prison-industrial complex must be dismantled**
    Do you believe most of prisoners are innocent*
     
    Yes, as presently constituted -- as the racist and human-rights obscenity that it is -- of course it should be dismantled. That does not mean that all prisoners are innocent or that none need to be detained, perhaps in a prison-like institution. There IS such thing as dangerous, anti-social criminals who should be locked up. But the prison-industrial complex as it exists is an utter human rights outrage, housing huge numbers of perps of victimless "crimes", in addition to other faults, and if you spend even one hour looking into it you will agree with me, if you are a decent human being.

    https://www.libertariannews.org/2011/09/29/victimless-crime-constitutes-86-of-the-american-prison-population/
    Victimless Crime Constitutes 86% of The Federal Prison Population

    http://returntonow.net/2016/06/13/prison-labor-is-the-new-american-slavery/
    How Prison Labor is the New American Slavery and Most of Us Unknowingly Support it

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Jim_Crow
    The New Jim Crow
  144. @Santoculto
    I think you are confusing social class with lead poisoning

    Because they tend to be poor, governments, specially in the past, with ZERO echological and social conscience, has transferred hard industries to the poor neighborhoods. So we have a association of three variables: [already existent] avg lower intelligence/lack of control impulse, black ethnicity and comparatively higher exposition to industrial toxicity.

    http://www.healthline.com/health/lead-poisoning#prevention8

    If most blacks [whatever the place they are**] are constantly presenting these symptoms, then we are actually talking about something closer to what you have advocated here.

    ''We'' must prove that

    is really happening/happened a epidemic lead poisoning;

    that lead poisoning [in higher levels of contamination] reduce intelligence [''aka'' IQ] as zika virus cause microcephaly,

    that this reduction of intelligence will persists...


    I'm born and live in place where levels of lead poisoning has been lower and still i see the same white-black-whatever discrepancies in intelligence...

    The cognitive and psychological discrepancies are not local phenomena, it's general, generalized, whatever place people are.


    I'm understanding your thinking lines, you are saying basically that ''lead poisoning is one of the responsible for lower intelligence/aggressive behavior of blacks, on avg''... so ''no there such thing innate lower black intelligence, it's environmental AND by racist reasons''.

    Indeed poor people has been neglected about some basic rights throughout the human history but i think even all social injustice they have suffered, they are not poor only because the evil rich but because they born with lower intelligence and impulse controls, this factors make them vulnerable to the predation or parasitism of evil clever people.

    London population has been exposed for very higher pollution levels since a long time, whatever social classes, even because London city is quite demographically populated and not with bigger size but is not everyone who have their intelligence levels reduced...

    In the end, i'm trying to understand what's going on and yes, based on what i see here where i live, blacks are not less smarter and more prone to violent behavior because evil white men but because themselves.

    And leftists tend to be extremely stubborn/intelectually arrogant, hypocritical, dissimulated and ignorant about human behavior.

    What do you think about en masse immigration to the western countries*

    Answer this question, please.

    Even, in this case you're right, ''you'' already have a historical of lies, dissimulations and stupid theories, for example, the so-called ''gender theory''.

    As to immigration, I shall restrict my comments to large scale immigration such as is now a problem. There is the concern about IQ and cultural practices, the concern about ethnic displacement, and the concern about elite motivation.

    As to ethnic displacement, that is evil, both in the first and third world; see a rant by Andre Vltchek in regards the latter. I cannot condone it.

    As to cultural practices, once they become entrenched in the new home, they become harder to eradicate there than in the old home. Cases in point: FGM (almost absent in northern Nigeria, very strongly present in southern Nigeria—consider likely route of transmission) and honour killings (Palestinian if Fisk is to be believed, yet seems to be a bigger problem in the Diaspora than in historical Palestine). So another evil…

    As to IQ, we shall see—my intuition is that inter-ethnic IQ is dominated by environment, but some of that is cultural (e.g. mercury based skin bleaches), and much of Europe only recently phased out leaded petrol (outside Germany and the Nordics), so the children of immigrants should be pathological for a while yet (tendency to settle in larger cities; tendency toward lactose intolerance hence little calcium intake to displace lead).

    As to elite motivation, I think they want sheep, cheap labour (the threat of immigrant scabs), and the breakdown of ethnicity as a source of commonality for resistance to elite designs.

    Read More
  145. alan2102 says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    Your suggesting that IQ's genetic componentis "not much" suggests that you are not distinguishing between the question wrt ethnic groups and the question about individuals regardless of ethnicity. Why? Because no one with their eyes and ears open or the slightest acquaintance with the literature - particularly twin studies - has any doubt that smart patents tend to have smart kids and vice versa regardless of upbringing, though that helps in an often reciprocal way.

    no one with…the slightest acquaintance with the literature – particularly twin studies – has any doubt that smart patents tend to have smart kids and vice versa

    No one with the slightest acquaintance with the literature critiquing the twin studies has any doubt that the twin studies are not what they’ve been cracked-up to be — probably not even close.

    Will the twin study technique eventually be consigned to the wastebasket of pseudoscience? Who knows? But it is a possibility.

    http://logosjournal.com/2015/joseph-twin-research/

    The Twin Research Debate in American Criminology

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johan Meyer
    That article has a severe scientific logical problem. Irrespective of whether, in the final analysis (perhaps two decades from now), crime and IQ is in fact due to genetics (see some results published on this site, not relying on twin studies---Bengali blogger who has since left), it is perfectly valid to develop a scientific model/hypothesis involving genes, perform simulations, and see if your genetic assumption is falsified---it is a good common sense check. It does not prove that genes are responsible, but the onus is on those who seek to disprove such a result. And the route of said simulations has been closed off, by the researchers doing that check.
  146. alan2102 says:
    @utu

    "What good are high IQs if they are used mostly to facilitate cheating and theft? "
     
    Are you alluding to Jews?

    Are you alluding to Jews?

    No.

    Read More
  147. @Santoculto
    I think you are confusing social class with lead poisoning

    Because they tend to be poor, governments, specially in the past, with ZERO echological and social conscience, has transferred hard industries to the poor neighborhoods. So we have a association of three variables: [already existent] avg lower intelligence/lack of control impulse, black ethnicity and comparatively higher exposition to industrial toxicity.

    http://www.healthline.com/health/lead-poisoning#prevention8

    If most blacks [whatever the place they are**] are constantly presenting these symptoms, then we are actually talking about something closer to what you have advocated here.

    ''We'' must prove that

    is really happening/happened a epidemic lead poisoning;

    that lead poisoning [in higher levels of contamination] reduce intelligence [''aka'' IQ] as zika virus cause microcephaly,

    that this reduction of intelligence will persists...


    I'm born and live in place where levels of lead poisoning has been lower and still i see the same white-black-whatever discrepancies in intelligence...

    The cognitive and psychological discrepancies are not local phenomena, it's general, generalized, whatever place people are.


    I'm understanding your thinking lines, you are saying basically that ''lead poisoning is one of the responsible for lower intelligence/aggressive behavior of blacks, on avg''... so ''no there such thing innate lower black intelligence, it's environmental AND by racist reasons''.

    Indeed poor people has been neglected about some basic rights throughout the human history but i think even all social injustice they have suffered, they are not poor only because the evil rich but because they born with lower intelligence and impulse controls, this factors make them vulnerable to the predation or parasitism of evil clever people.

    London population has been exposed for very higher pollution levels since a long time, whatever social classes, even because London city is quite demographically populated and not with bigger size but is not everyone who have their intelligence levels reduced...

    In the end, i'm trying to understand what's going on and yes, based on what i see here where i live, blacks are not less smarter and more prone to violent behavior because evil white men but because themselves.

    And leftists tend to be extremely stubborn/intelectually arrogant, hypocritical, dissimulated and ignorant about human behavior.

    What do you think about en masse immigration to the western countries*

    Answer this question, please.

    Even, in this case you're right, ''you'' already have a historical of lies, dissimulations and stupid theories, for example, the so-called ''gender theory''.

    I missed that you are from London (I assume UK, not ON Canada). What proportion of London blacks were born in UK? Lead poisoning is largerly an issue in infancy wrt crime, IQ. Also, for those areas with UK born blacks, what is the age of the housing stock? Lead paint was banned in the 30s in UK iirc. As to lead and pathology, despite my disagreement on epidemiology with Nevin, I do recommend his website as a starting point—though I am suspicious of his dose response (IQ) based on the epidemiological concern.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    I believe epidemic lead poisoning must need have a demographically monumental manifestation of their symptoms throughout human populations.
  148. @alan2102
    Santoculto:


    You are generalizing

     

    Yes, of course I am. That's what all of us do, almost all of the time. We do it because it is a very useful and indispensable technique.


    Regular right wing people believe in the hard working and meritocracy

     

    Not really. They SAY they do. But they are almost invariably in the "born on third and think they hit a triple" group. There might be rare exceptions, but so what? What I say is generally true, and that's good enough. In discussions with right-wingers I note that there is a complete absence of any awareness of the empirical work on social mobility and "meritocracy" -- which clearly shows that the idea of meritocracy is largely rubbish. It is simply one of their cherished myths -- one of the comfortable and comforting lies that they tell themselves. They must tell themselves such lies because the truth would be far too painful for them to face.


    explain me the existence of super-rich leftist celebrities**

     

    There are no super-rich leftists. That is a contradiction in terms. Some rich celebrities support one or other pet "progressive" cause, but that does not make them leftists. Money perverts people and turns them into right-wing assholes, in nearly 100% of cases. There might be rare exceptions, but so what? What I say is generally true, and that is good enough. Leonardo DeCaprio is "concerned" about climate change, while he flies his private jet around the world. Fuck him. He is a right-wing asshole, barely different from the Koch brothers. You cannot atone for your right-wing assholery by a few pious statements of "concern", or even by writing big checks to the relevant NGOs. Sorry.


    En masse immigration to the european countries blaming current living white people for all sins is fair* or just revenge*

     

    What is important is the CAUSE if massive immigration. It was caused by right-wing assholes, pursuing policies that destroyed economies and cultures such that immigration to the West/North is the only route to a better life. You'll note I said it was "caused by right-wing assholes", NOT that it was caused by "current living white people". It so happens that most of said right-wing assholes ARE white, but that is not important. As far as the currently living generation is concerned, that's largely incidental. They could just as easily be black, or any other color. Or they could be women. Margaret Thatcher, Hillary Clinton, Condi Rice, and many others -- all right-wing assholes. Your IDENTITY as a black, a latino, a woman, etc., does not atone for your right-wing assholery, either.


    I agree that in the recent past western societies was not good for many people namely in the ”minorities’ but also for, maybe, majority of people who wasn’t white/OR jewish, OR/rich and powerful.

     

    Indeed. Life sucked for most white people, too. Poor and working-class whites had it bad. White slavery was a real and terrible thing. Do not mistake what I am saying as a buy-in to the racial reductionistic narrative that locates the blame for everything on whites. That's not the case, and is not at all what I believe. White supremacy has been responsible for a ton of atrocities and outrages, but it is not responsible for everything, not even close.


    Right wing have A LOT OF good points. They are just like soldier sentinels.... [they] detect dangers, specially foreign dangers

     

    True. If you're in a survival situation, you had best have some of those reptilian qualities. But then, 99.9% of us live, 99.9% of the time, in situations where those qualities are at best useless, and at worst destructive.


    Most reasonable people whatever their ideological positions believe that corrupt ones must be jailed

     

    The issue is not whether or not you believe that "corrupt ones must be jailed", because of course EVERYONE believes that. The issue is WHAT YOU CAN SEE; specifically, what corruption and criminality you are capable of seeing. Most people, for example, do not see that the prison-industrial complex is a gigantic immoral and criminal enterprise that should be dismantled immediately. Most people do not see this because they are in the grip of a right-wing mass media and right-wing education, and are deluged with right-wing propaganda day in and day out, with almost never any serious critique.


    Charles Murray is not racist firstly because he married a non-white non-Jewish woman

     

    Irrelevant. Instances of retail interpersonal non-bigotry are quite cheap and count for little. The real action is in the ideas that you propagate, the institutions you support, the ways you obtain and spend money. You cannot atone for your right-wing assholery by marrying a non-white, especially an asian, or by having a few non-white friends, especially asians. I know that right-wing assholes would LOVE to believe otherwise, and I'm sorry to disappoint them.

    Irrelevant. Instances of retail interpersonal non-bigotry are quite cheap and count for little. The real action is in the ideas that you propagate, the institutions you support, the ways you obtain and spend money. You cannot atone for your right-wing assholery by marrying a non-white, especially an asian, or by having a few non-white friends, especially asians. I know that right-wing assholes would LOVE to believe otherwise, and I’m sorry to disappoint them.

    Even he is a ”right wing asshole” i don’t think their works about jewish-east asian-white-black IQ and socio-economic outcomes discrepancies exactly a pseudo-science, what do you think about it*

    Read More
  149. @Johan Meyer
    My view is let the chips fall where they may. However, I do notice general ignorance (left and right, including among advocates for lead removal) a very large ignorance about lead poisoning realities (distribution of poisoning e.g. geographical, biomechanics e.g. wrt placenta, blood brain barrier etc).

    You say that your region has had lower poisoning---prior to leaded gasoline phaseout, what was the geometric mean blood lead level, and post-phaseout, what proportion of the infant population had bll above 10microgram per decilitre? In the sporadic poisoning regime, that number may be roughly multiplied by ten to get actual poisoning.

    I understand that external signs of harsh lead proportion in the air and in the ground are based on number of heavy industry in the region and in my region, where i was born and where i actually live at least in terms of number of heavy industry and atmospheric pollution has been lower than in other places. For example, lower than in big brazilian cities, no doubt.

    You know to the positive diagnosis of lead poisoning is need people have correlate symptoms as well in medical exams.

    Do you believe blacks are, on avg, innately less smart than whites*

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johan Meyer
    I am not sure wrt Brazilian cities---it depends on the era as Brazil reduced lead petrol. What portion of the smelter fallout is biologically available e.g. ionic, as opposed to metallic?

    As to blacks, it depends on what you mean by innate. I have no hope that someone with a low IQ will later have a high IQ. As to their offspring, my intuition is that the latter's environment will determine most of that outcome, but the chips will fall where they may---I may be wrong and it may be predominantly genetic---but I do hold that genetic causality has not yet been demonstrated, especially for group differences. Environmental models are woefully incomplete, and assignation of genetic effect will be in competition with environment.
  150. @Santoculto
    I think you are confusing social class with lead poisoning

    Because they tend to be poor, governments, specially in the past, with ZERO echological and social conscience, has transferred hard industries to the poor neighborhoods. So we have a association of three variables: [already existent] avg lower intelligence/lack of control impulse, black ethnicity and comparatively higher exposition to industrial toxicity.

    http://www.healthline.com/health/lead-poisoning#prevention8

    If most blacks [whatever the place they are**] are constantly presenting these symptoms, then we are actually talking about something closer to what you have advocated here.

    ''We'' must prove that

    is really happening/happened a epidemic lead poisoning;

    that lead poisoning [in higher levels of contamination] reduce intelligence [''aka'' IQ] as zika virus cause microcephaly,

    that this reduction of intelligence will persists...


    I'm born and live in place where levels of lead poisoning has been lower and still i see the same white-black-whatever discrepancies in intelligence...

    The cognitive and psychological discrepancies are not local phenomena, it's general, generalized, whatever place people are.


    I'm understanding your thinking lines, you are saying basically that ''lead poisoning is one of the responsible for lower intelligence/aggressive behavior of blacks, on avg''... so ''no there such thing innate lower black intelligence, it's environmental AND by racist reasons''.

    Indeed poor people has been neglected about some basic rights throughout the human history but i think even all social injustice they have suffered, they are not poor only because the evil rich but because they born with lower intelligence and impulse controls, this factors make them vulnerable to the predation or parasitism of evil clever people.

    London population has been exposed for very higher pollution levels since a long time, whatever social classes, even because London city is quite demographically populated and not with bigger size but is not everyone who have their intelligence levels reduced...

    In the end, i'm trying to understand what's going on and yes, based on what i see here where i live, blacks are not less smarter and more prone to violent behavior because evil white men but because themselves.

    And leftists tend to be extremely stubborn/intelectually arrogant, hypocritical, dissimulated and ignorant about human behavior.

    What do you think about en masse immigration to the western countries*

    Answer this question, please.

    Even, in this case you're right, ''you'' already have a historical of lies, dissimulations and stupid theories, for example, the so-called ''gender theory''.

    In particular I would like your comments about this piece by Nevin (again, with my complaint about BLL)… It strikes me as a direct test of the claimed causality, with strong failure to falsify.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Johan,
    first, we are talking about a MACRO chain of trends with a complex web of variables. We have some constant patterns: blacks are disproportional violent WHATEVER the place they are; whites, namely western ones, and northeast asians, are less ''street-violent'', WHATEVER the place they are.

    So, we have since the most polluted city in the world, to the free-pollution areas, where this trends has ben well documented. If lead poisoning is so powerful not just blacks would be affected but everyone. If load poisoning is so high to affect blacks like that so it must affected other groups, we had a overall increase of violent behavior caused by load poisoning. How explain blacks who live in dangerous places and supposedly, are being affected by lead, don't have the same behavior**

    We know many black neighbohoods in USA, for example, are near to the other ethnic ghettos. To this hypothesis be right, chineses, italians, irish, jews, everyone must have the same levels of violence that blacks, on disproportional avg, has showed.

    I use myself and the region i live as example. A region with much less pollution, a state, many middle and little cities, and tell you that: avg black behavior don't change here.

    Even we know pollution levels have in mainland Africa i really doubt that their behavior has been shaped by load poisoning.

    I think you know human body have some tolerance to the lead...

    When a place is very polluted, this pollution don't stay there but spread to the neighborhood.


    Based on your hypothesis, men must be disproportionately more affected by load ''poisoning'' than women. For example, the level of criminality among black women in USA is the same levels to the white american criminality.

    To the decrease of incarcerations among younger and increase of incarcerations among older we have firstly studied what's going, if it's not only a local phenomena.

    The higher violence levels among black communities don't appear to be modern phenomenon. Why do you think USA created a ''Jim Crow laws''*

    Why amerindians weren't more enslaved but blacks were*

    , @Santoculto
    Before to jump to the extraordinary evidence like that we need analyse what is more obvious to find contradictions to invalidates them, for example, demographic changes or changes in judicial aspect.
  151. alan2102 says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    So-called races are so evident and important that liberals are those who are more concerned and repetitive about it.
     
    Yes, liberals are very much into 'races'; it's one of their favorite identities.

    I disagree that 'races' are evident: there are different definitions, borderlines are very much blurred already, and likely to become more and more blurred in the future, until this particular classification will stop making sense completely.

    I also disagree that it is important (essential). A very similar characteristic was customary essentialized not so long ago: hereditary nobility, hereditary royalty. It seemed extremely important only 200 years ago, and yet it's almost completely gone now, and hardly anyone is bothered by its disappearance...

    I disagree that ‘races’ are evident: there are different definitions, borderlines are very much blurred already, and likely to become more and more blurred in the future, until this particular classification will stop making sense completely.
    I also disagree that it is important (essential). A very similar characteristic was customary essentialized not so long ago: hereditary nobility, hereditary royalty. It seemed extremely important only 200 years ago, and yet it’s almost completely gone now, and hardly anyone is bothered by its disappearance…

    YES! And this is another reason that I lost interest. Taking the long view, race is doomed to irrelevance and non-existence in the modern/post-modern worlds of high mobility, social/marital mixing/dilution, combined with prevailing views which obscure or dismiss race as a category entirely. It might take another century, but it will happen. Race itself is doomed, and with it, racism and “race realism” and the like. Which of course is a good thing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon

    It might take another century, but it will happen. Race itself is doomed, and with it, racism and “race realism” and the like. Which of course is a good thing.
     
    Not in China.
    Not in India.
    Not in Africa.
    Only in the once-White countries.

    This is where egalitarianism combined with denying the reality of genetics leads: SJW support for the global genocide of white people.

    It's the same reason for the institutional psychological abuse of white children in the schools over "privilege." Their "privilege" is genetic and so for the Left the only way to equalize things is the eradication of white children - kinda like a racial version of the Khmer Rouge.

    Alternatively they could admit genetics is the reason and instead of dragging one group down they could lift other groups up - but that would involve having to admit they were wrong. Much easier to scapegoat white children in the schools.
  152. @Johan Meyer
    About education, it is patterns that are not automatically accessible to higher IQ people---lower IQ are already excluded, as that basal pattern recognition is needed to learn and apply the more abstract and generalisable (math) and more specific (science) algorithms of pattern recognition. Only those with already substantial intelligence should be able to escape biological limitations of g, and then only partially.

    Only those with already substantial intelligence should be able to escape biological limitations of g, and then only partially.

    Are you talking about creativity here*

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johan Meyer
    Not creativity as normally understood, though some creativity is needed to find and encode these pattern recognition processes.
  153. alan2102 says:
    @Santoculto
    It's psychometric general intelligence, ;)

    It’s psychometric general intelligence

    But no one actually uses that phrase — “PSYCHOMETRIC general intelligence”. Ever. EVER.

    A google search for the phrase “psychometric general intelligence” returns 32 hits. 32!

    A google search for ” general intelligence” returns 636 THOUSAND hits.

    This is deliberate. It is not referred to as “psychometric” general intelligence because that would place a proper, realistic, honest limit on the idea. The IQ-ists don’t want that. They want to claim — arrogantly, presumptuously, self-importantly — GENERAL INTELLIGENCE. Get it?

    Read More
  154. alan2102 says:
    @anon
    you're welcome.

    it's been known for decades that iodine deficiency lowers IQ so anything that adds to or reduces a deficiency will effect people.

    and that is not just adding iodine itself (where deficient) e.g. more fish, but also other factors which may reduce the positive effect of iodine e.g. bromide, chloride, fluoride, lead(?).

    not just adding iodine itself (where deficient) e.g. more fish, but also other factors which may reduce the positive effect of iodine e.g. bromide, chloride, fluoride

    Yes, in addition to other goitrogens, including organic dietary ones such as cyanogenic glycosides, richly supplied by the non-indigenous (introduced by the colonizers) staple food cassava. Goiter and hypothyroidism are rampant throughout Africa, with disastrous implications for brain development and IQ. The real action with respect to iodine is thyroid status, as I pointed out up thread. All of this is well-documented, if anyone cares to look.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johan Meyer
    Thanks for that. I shall be spreading that information among my west African friends.
  155. @alan2102

    no one with...the slightest acquaintance with the literature – particularly twin studies – has any doubt that smart patents tend to have smart kids and vice versa
     
    No one with the slightest acquaintance with the literature critiquing the twin studies has any doubt that the twin studies are not what they've been cracked-up to be -- probably not even close.

    Will the twin study technique eventually be consigned to the wastebasket of pseudoscience? Who knows? But it is a possibility.

    http://logosjournal.com/2015/joseph-twin-research/
    The Twin Research Debate in American Criminology

    That article has a severe scientific logical problem. Irrespective of whether, in the final analysis (perhaps two decades from now), crime and IQ is in fact due to genetics (see some results published on this site, not relying on twin studies—Bengali blogger who has since left), it is perfectly valid to develop a scientific model/hypothesis involving genes, perform simulations, and see if your genetic assumption is falsified—it is a good common sense check. It does not prove that genes are responsible, but the onus is on those who seek to disprove such a result. And the route of said simulations has been closed off, by the researchers doing that check.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    I looked at "The Twin Research Debate in American Criminology" (http://logosjournal.com/2015/joseph-twin-research/) I do not see anything there that could invalidate twin studies of IQ heritability This is unfortunate because the de facto definition of heritability that is used in IQ research should be addressed to tackle the problem.
  156. @Santoculto

    Only those with already substantial intelligence should be able to escape biological limitations of g, and then only partially.
     
    Are you talking about creativity here*

    Not creativity as normally understood, though some creativity is needed to find and encode these pattern recognition processes.

    Read More
  157. @alan2102

    So, the left is the representative of every decent human being, eh?

     

    No. But there is a rough correlation.

    How are you any different than Catholic churchmen that knew what the truth was and had no problem with burning people at the stake

     

    That's an easy one. I don't advocate burning people at the stake. That's how I am different. I also don't advocate a LONG list of other things which amount to the equivalent -- in terms of collective injustice, cruelty, and so on -- of burning people at the stake. I suspect that I am different from you in that regard.


    You’re just another self-righteous prick that assumes the moral superiority of your religion

     

    You're right. I assume the moral superiority of decency, fairness, justice, and the like. I am a total prick about those things. I also assume the moral superiority of kindness to children and animals, and I am a total prick about those things, too. Insufferably self-righteous.

    If only the world could be rid of busybody do-gooder leftists like me, so that we could bring back chattel slavery, prejudicial scapegoating, cruelty to animals, child labor, public torture, and ALL the wonderful stuff from the good old days!


    The left will squeal that communism didn’t work because it was not done right

     

    Communism DID work to raise hundreds of millions out of serfdom and miserable poverty, and to extend life expectancies dramatically.


    only black suffering is important to your self-righteous narrative.

     

    As I made clear up thread, white suffering is very important to me. Race and racial supremacism, while important, are secondary matters. Class is primary.

    Oh, and “nigger”. This is just a word. I’m sorry, but for blacks and their apologists, this somehow justifies theft, rape, and murder.

     

    What in the hell are you talking about?


    The truth is that the black race is a parasite that can only glom onto a host to live a first world life.

     

    Good gracious mercy me. I did not know the Stormfront crowd had arrived. But I should not be surprised. They swarm in whenever the door is opened a crack. Show me a "race realist" or "hbd" site, and I will show you a mob of rabid Nazi hangers-on. It goes with the territory.

    [SNIP the rest of "Anonymous White Male"s semi-coherent, inconsistent, largely irrelevant, racist, low-IQ rant]

    I’m sorry moderators. I can’t resist.

    “Communism DID work to raise hundreds of millions out of serfdom and miserable poverty, and to extend life expectancies dramatically.”

    The fact that you would say this shows that you are either incapable of honesty or you are an idiot. Or both. This alone disqualifies any of your posts. If you actually believe this, your entire position is one of self-deception.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johan Meyer
    China, Russia both had massive increases in life expectancy, despite (because of?) famines (caloric intake limitation?), as did Chile (see Andre Gunder Frank on the de facto famine in the first few years of Pinochet---the open letters to Friedman and Harbeggar (spelling?) and nationmaster or similar for the rise in life expectancy.
    , @alan2102

    “Communism DID work to raise hundreds of millions out of serfdom and miserable poverty, and to extend life expectancies dramatically.”

    The fact that you would say this shows that you are either incapable of honesty or you are an idiot.
     
    The fact that you would say this shows that you are either ignorant of history or that you are an idiot. Or a combination of the two, which is likely in your case.

    Russia and China before their revolutions were horrible places with life expectancies of ~30. Life expectancies went from ~30 to ~60 within a short few decades after the revolutions, due to dramatic improvements in general conditions -- nutrition, medicine, sanitation, etc. People were desperately poor, dying by the millions at very young ages, before the revolutions. China was a horrid feudal backwater, as was most of Russia. The communists instituted huge improvements for the common people on all fronts: public health, nutrition, medical care, education, and so on. The demographic stats clearly reflect the improvements. This is well documented, a matter of undeniable statistical record. Although it IS frequently denied by ignorant and/or stupid right-wing turds.
  158. @Santoculto
    I understand that external signs of harsh lead proportion in the air and in the ground are based on number of heavy industry in the region and in my region, where i was born and where i actually live at least in terms of number of heavy industry and atmospheric pollution has been lower than in other places. For example, lower than in big brazilian cities, no doubt.

    You know to the positive diagnosis of lead poisoning is need people have correlate symptoms as well in medical exams.

    Do you believe blacks are, on avg, innately less smart than whites*

    I am not sure wrt Brazilian cities—it depends on the era as Brazil reduced lead petrol. What portion of the smelter fallout is biologically available e.g. ionic, as opposed to metallic?

    As to blacks, it depends on what you mean by innate. I have no hope that someone with a low IQ will later have a high IQ. As to their offspring, my intuition is that the latter’s environment will determine most of that outcome, but the chips will fall where they may—I may be wrong and it may be predominantly genetic—but I do hold that genetic causality has not yet been demonstrated, especially for group differences. Environmental models are woefully incomplete, and assignation of genetic effect will be in competition with environment.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Innate i mean predominant and easily transferable condition.

    I also believe that some people may have more resistance to all this industrial toxicity than others. If not everyone in Eastern Europe and China would be suffering this effects.

    What i already said. Blacks, on avg, have lower intelligence even before industrial revolution, slavery is a example.

    Yes, epidemic poisoning can increase problems and i no doubt many cases has been reported but i doubt this scale is gigantic and extremely influent as seems you are suggesting, well, i can be wrong, absolutely.
  159. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @alan2102

    I disagree that ‘races’ are evident: there are different definitions, borderlines are very much blurred already, and likely to become more and more blurred in the future, until this particular classification will stop making sense completely.
    I also disagree that it is important (essential). A very similar characteristic was customary essentialized not so long ago: hereditary nobility, hereditary royalty. It seemed extremely important only 200 years ago, and yet it’s almost completely gone now, and hardly anyone is bothered by its disappearance…
     
    YES! And this is another reason that I lost interest. Taking the long view, race is doomed to irrelevance and non-existence in the modern/post-modern worlds of high mobility, social/marital mixing/dilution, combined with prevailing views which obscure or dismiss race as a category entirely. It might take another century, but it will happen. Race itself is doomed, and with it, racism and "race realism" and the like. Which of course is a good thing.

    It might take another century, but it will happen. Race itself is doomed, and with it, racism and “race realism” and the like. Which of course is a good thing.

    Not in China.
    Not in India.
    Not in Africa.
    Only in the once-White countries.

    This is where egalitarianism combined with denying the reality of genetics leads: SJW support for the global genocide of white people.

    It’s the same reason for the institutional psychological abuse of white children in the schools over “privilege.” Their “privilege” is genetic and so for the Left the only way to equalize things is the eradication of white children – kinda like a racial version of the Khmer Rouge.

    Alternatively they could admit genetics is the reason and instead of dragging one group down they could lift other groups up – but that would involve having to admit they were wrong. Much easier to scapegoat white children in the schools.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johan Meyer
    Really? Based on which observations?
    , @alan2102


    Alan2102: " It might take another century, but it will happen. Race itself is doomed, and with it, racism and “race realism” and the like. Which of course is a good thing."

    Not in China.
    Not in India.
    Not in Africa.
     
    You're right. I was too optimistic when I said one century. Try: TWO centuries. It will take that long for general development to reach a level that allows full mobility and mixing, as it is now doing in the more-developed parts of the world (U.S. and Europe). China has a good start and will be first, then India, then (in, say, ~150 years) Africa.

    As general and economic development proceed, as people become more educated, better-nourished, healthier and more intelligent, they leave the provincialism of the "old country". They look to travel, to experience other people and places, often to relocate, and of course generally to MIX, including sexual and marital mixing. It is all part of general development.

    This is where egalitarianism combined with denying the reality of genetics leads: SJW support for the global genocide of white people.
     
    Oh for God's sake. "Genocide"! You view the general development and upliftment of the human race, resulting inevitably in racial mixture, as "genocide" of your "pure" whiteness. Gads. Shades of Madison Grant or Lothrup Stoddard. It is fortunate indeed that there are so few people like you, and that your kind are dying off. A century ago, people like you were everywhere. Now, ~2017, you've been reduced to a tiny struggling band, soon to be extincted. Thank heaven. The arc of human progress is long, but it trends ever toward improvement.

    It’s the same reason for the institutional psychological abuse of white children in the schools over “privilege.” Their “privilege” is genetic and so for the Left the only way to equalize things is the eradication of white children – kinda like a racial version of the Khmer Rouge.
     
    Jeezuz M F Christ. Well, like I say, the HBD world has marginalized itself, and those paranoid and ridiculous words are a good example as to why. When you put things in Stormfront-speak, like you just did, ("eradication of white children"), you contribute to the consignment of the HBD/"race-realism" community, to the extent that you represent it or are tolerated by it, to the permanent dustbin of justifiably rejected and abhorred bullshit. Not rejected because it contains no grain of scientific truth (it DOES contain grains of truth), but because of the racist wingnut bilge that is associated with that truth. Or, as some wag put it: "who you ARE speaks so loudly that I cannot hear what you are saying" (i.e. "your gross character flaws overwhelm whatever minor grains of objective fact you may be uttering").

    It might be possible for the HBD community to rehabilitate itself, over a couple or three decades. But it would have to re-construct itself, completely eliminating the Stormfront/Nazi wingnut types. You simply can't have those kinds of people in your community and expect society in general to take you seriously. Don't you see that? Is anyone listening? Hey, I'm trying to offer friendly advice with which you might have a snowball's chance of actually getting somewhere in this world. :-) I actually have a soft spot in my heart for lost or nearly-lost causes, like HBD.
  160. @alan2102

    not just adding iodine itself (where deficient) e.g. more fish, but also other factors which may reduce the positive effect of iodine e.g. bromide, chloride, fluoride
     
    Yes, in addition to other goitrogens, including organic dietary ones such as cyanogenic glycosides, richly supplied by the non-indigenous (introduced by the colonizers) staple food cassava. Goiter and hypothyroidism are rampant throughout Africa, with disastrous implications for brain development and IQ. The real action with respect to iodine is thyroid status, as I pointed out up thread. All of this is well-documented, if anyone cares to look.

    Thanks for that. I shall be spreading that information among my west African friends.

    Read More
  161. @Johan Meyer
    I missed that you are from London (I assume UK, not ON Canada). What proportion of London blacks were born in UK? Lead poisoning is largerly an issue in infancy wrt crime, IQ. Also, for those areas with UK born blacks, what is the age of the housing stock? Lead paint was banned in the 30s in UK iirc. As to lead and pathology, despite my disagreement on epidemiology with Nevin, I do recommend his website as a starting point---though I am suspicious of his dose response (IQ) based on the epidemiological concern.

    I believe epidemic lead poisoning must need have a demographically monumental manifestation of their symptoms throughout human populations.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johan Meyer
    The problem of lead poisoning is that its symptoms are non-specific, e.g. IQ loss, stomache ache, constipation aka colic, and only at very severe poisoning do very specific symptoms manifest, e.g. blue lead gumline. Blood lead works for a consistent poisoning regime, but not so well for sporadic poisoning, hence my wish to have large scale bone K-edge subtraction diagnosis, although correction for age is needed, as well as for subsequent occupational exposures.
  162. alan2102 says:
    @anon

    I have no “secret beliefs”. I made it PERFECTLY clear what I believe, and you cannot possibly have missed it, unless you’re stupid, and I’m assuming you’re not stupid.
     
    That's what I thought.

    from an earlier post

    ...lead poisoning in Africa...high-fluoride drinking water (powerful goitrogen, iodine antagonist). Also a vast amount of iron deficiency...iodine deficiency, often responsible for lowering IQ by 10 points or more. Also a great deal of selenium deficiency; selenium being essential to thyroid hormone utilization (i.e. “iodine utilization”, to put it briefly); selenium deficit is the probable cause of cretinism — profound IQ loss (like, scores of points)...
     
    Cool. Personally all I ask from SJWs who can't or won't accept the genetic aspect (at least publicly) is they focus on biological solutions rather than the 60 years of sociological nonsense about pre-school, stereotype threat etc that will never work.

    It's biological.

    What good are high IQs if they are used mostly to facilitate cheating and theft?
     
    No argument there. I'm personally more interested in raising the IQ of the left side of the Bell curve out of the "running with scissors" range as that's where the consequences of low IQ are at their most bloody - particularly for the kids.

    Personally all I ask from SJWs who can’t or won’t accept the genetic aspect (at least publicly) is they focus on biological solutions rather than the 60 years of sociological nonsense about pre-school, stereotype threat etc that will never work. It’s biological.

    The “sociological nonsense” like preschool programs, anti-poverty programs, etc., ARE biological and make a modest contribution to the desired outcomes. They exert effects that are ultimately biological. For example, by reducing poverty, improving neighborhoods and other “sociological nonsense”, we reduce stress and cortisol levels. Cortisol (HPA axis activation) has a substantial impact on brain development and IQ, particularly fluid intelligence; cortisol in excess literally causes brain ATROPHY. Such programs are good and necessary, but they are not sufficient. They are weak, and need to be combined with other, more powerful technics.

    In the course of work along these lines we will no doubt discover interesting complementarities and synergies; like, say, reduced stress COMBINED with improved omega-3 fatty acid nutrition COMBINED with zeroing-out exposure to goitrogens might be found to have a gratifying synergistic impact on brain development and, ultimately, IQ. This is a fertile field for research, which could easily go on for a century or more before we have good answers. The research has not even begun.

    Read More
    • Replies: @alan2102
    I just wrote: "In the course of work along these lines we will no doubt discover interesting complementarities and synergies"

    I was talking about positive (desirable, beneficial) synergies. But it can work the other way, too -- negative (undesirable, harmful) synergies. For example, iron deficiency (vast prevalence in Africa and South Asia, surprisingly prevalent also in the developed world, particularly among disadvantaged mothers and their children) greatly increases the susceptibility to the harmful effects of lead. A negative synergy.
  163. @anon

    It might take another century, but it will happen. Race itself is doomed, and with it, racism and “race realism” and the like. Which of course is a good thing.
     
    Not in China.
    Not in India.
    Not in Africa.
    Only in the once-White countries.

    This is where egalitarianism combined with denying the reality of genetics leads: SJW support for the global genocide of white people.

    It's the same reason for the institutional psychological abuse of white children in the schools over "privilege." Their "privilege" is genetic and so for the Left the only way to equalize things is the eradication of white children - kinda like a racial version of the Khmer Rouge.

    Alternatively they could admit genetics is the reason and instead of dragging one group down they could lift other groups up - but that would involve having to admit they were wrong. Much easier to scapegoat white children in the schools.

    Really? Based on which observations?

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Based on observations of SJWs, often ex teachers, who know that some part of group differences is genetic but won't admit it.

    Knowing this leaves them with two choicess:
    1) raise the lower group
    or
    2) lower the upper group
    but raising the lower group requires first admitting they were wrong so they choose option (2) - the mass institutional child abuse of white children in schools over "privilege".
  164. @alan2102

    It's psychometric general intelligence
     
    But no one actually uses that phrase -- "PSYCHOMETRIC general intelligence". Ever. EVER.

    A google search for the phrase "psychometric general intelligence" returns 32 hits. 32!

    A google search for " general intelligence" returns 636 THOUSAND hits.

    This is deliberate. It is not referred to as "psychometric" general intelligence because that would place a proper, realistic, honest limit on the idea. The IQ-ists don't want that. They want to claim -- arrogantly, presumptuously, self-importantly -- GENERAL INTELLIGENCE. Get it?

    Yes, i know.

    Read More
  165. alan2102 says:
    @alan2102

    Personally all I ask from SJWs who can’t or won’t accept the genetic aspect (at least publicly) is they focus on biological solutions rather than the 60 years of sociological nonsense about pre-school, stereotype threat etc that will never work. It’s biological.
     
    The "sociological nonsense" like preschool programs, anti-poverty programs, etc., ARE biological and make a modest contribution to the desired outcomes. They exert effects that are ultimately biological. For example, by reducing poverty, improving neighborhoods and other "sociological nonsense", we reduce stress and cortisol levels. Cortisol (HPA axis activation) has a substantial impact on brain development and IQ, particularly fluid intelligence; cortisol in excess literally causes brain ATROPHY. Such programs are good and necessary, but they are not sufficient. They are weak, and need to be combined with other, more powerful technics.

    In the course of work along these lines we will no doubt discover interesting complementarities and synergies; like, say, reduced stress COMBINED with improved omega-3 fatty acid nutrition COMBINED with zeroing-out exposure to goitrogens might be found to have a gratifying synergistic impact on brain development and, ultimately, IQ. This is a fertile field for research, which could easily go on for a century or more before we have good answers. The research has not even begun.

    I just wrote: “In the course of work along these lines we will no doubt discover interesting complementarities and synergies”

    I was talking about positive (desirable, beneficial) synergies. But it can work the other way, too — negative (undesirable, harmful) synergies. For example, iron deficiency (vast prevalence in Africa and South Asia, surprisingly prevalent also in the developed world, particularly among disadvantaged mothers and their children) greatly increases the susceptibility to the harmful effects of lead. A negative synergy.

    Read More
  166. @Anonymous White Male
    I'm sorry moderators. I can't resist.

    "Communism DID work to raise hundreds of millions out of serfdom and miserable poverty, and to extend life expectancies dramatically."

    The fact that you would say this shows that you are either incapable of honesty or you are an idiot. Or both. This alone disqualifies any of your posts. If you actually believe this, your entire position is one of self-deception.

    China, Russia both had massive increases in life expectancy, despite (because of?) famines (caloric intake limitation?), as did Chile (see Andre Gunder Frank on the de facto famine in the first few years of Pinochet—the open letters to Friedman and Harbeggar (spelling?) and nationmaster or similar for the rise in life expectancy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous White Male
    I'm not sure what you are implying. You usually seem open to facts, but the implication in response to my comment that praising Communism shows inferior mental reasoning and self-justification for SJW BS makes me wonder if your post is showing a positive opinion about Communism. It may not be. I checked out your links. The China link showed that life expectancy increased once the Great Leap Forward ended. Not surprising. People were no longer being killed for ideological "impurity". But the fact that Chinese life expectancy is almost at European levels is at a time when China can no longer be considered Communist. Oh, sure, they are in name, but they have embraced elements of Capitalism so they can compete on the world stage. The Russia link does not specifically support increase in life expectancy that I can find. The comment that specifies this says:

    "You know what he’s leaving out of this? The fact that the USSR doubled the life expectancy by the end of the Stalin-era. In the 60’s at one point it actually surpassed that of the US. The figure he is quoting here is from the present, post-Soviet time. It’s a well-known fact that the fall of the USSR led to a sharp decline in life expectancy. Nice try, pal."

    This is a deluded opinion. Where is a link to these stats? Can you post it? The Stalin regime was notorious for its propaganda disseminated to the West. Plus, the death of millions of Kulaks and other non-believers would definitely lower the life expectancy, don't you think?

    Pinochet was a Fascist. Are you saying that a Fascist regime also had increases in life expectancy? If so, what does that have to do with Communism? I may have missed your point.
  167. @Johan Meyer
    I am not sure wrt Brazilian cities---it depends on the era as Brazil reduced lead petrol. What portion of the smelter fallout is biologically available e.g. ionic, as opposed to metallic?

    As to blacks, it depends on what you mean by innate. I have no hope that someone with a low IQ will later have a high IQ. As to their offspring, my intuition is that the latter's environment will determine most of that outcome, but the chips will fall where they may---I may be wrong and it may be predominantly genetic---but I do hold that genetic causality has not yet been demonstrated, especially for group differences. Environmental models are woefully incomplete, and assignation of genetic effect will be in competition with environment.

    Innate i mean predominant and easily transferable condition.

    I also believe that some people may have more resistance to all this industrial toxicity than others. If not everyone in Eastern Europe and China would be suffering this effects.

    What i already said. Blacks, on avg, have lower intelligence even before industrial revolution, slavery is a example.

    Yes, epidemic poisoning can increase problems and i no doubt many cases has been reported but i doubt this scale is gigantic and extremely influent as seems you are suggesting, well, i can be wrong, absolutely.

    Read More
  168. @Santoculto
    I believe epidemic lead poisoning must need have a demographically monumental manifestation of their symptoms throughout human populations.

    The problem of lead poisoning is that its symptoms are non-specific, e.g. IQ loss, stomache ache, constipation aka colic, and only at very severe poisoning do very specific symptoms manifest, e.g. blue lead gumline. Blood lead works for a consistent poisoning regime, but not so well for sporadic poisoning, hence my wish to have large scale bone K-edge subtraction diagnosis, although correction for age is needed, as well as for subsequent occupational exposures.

    Read More
  169. @Johan Meyer
    I've not yet gotten to the comment to which you are replying, but I read the article to which you linked. It mentions that blood lead level is correlated to soil lead, which suggests continuous poisoning. I've argued elsewhere (comment 8) that sporadic poisoning leads to blood lead levels that are not correlated well to poisoning. NHANES III distribution of BLL suggests paint is sporadic poisoning. A better proxy for sporadic poisoning is bone, as lead in the bone has a half life of 30 years, and can be measured by K edge subtraction radiography.

    thank you for this interesting comment. I am looking at blood lead dose-response relationships at the moment.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johan Meyer
    I am glad to have stirred your interest. The dose responses will invariably mix sporadic and continuous dose, often in the same individual, so the dose response to BLL I expect will be a function of time and place of the study. Sporadic dose will necessarily introduce very wide variance if blood rather than bone is used as tissue.
  170. alan2102 says:
    @Johan Meyer
    The reason I feel it is a very harmful distraction is because there is a critical mass of IQ researchers (the Human Biodiversity crowd) that has an immense interest in the matter. If they can be convinced to substantially test viable environmental models, it can force the hands of governments in poor countries. The leadership of the poor countries tend to believe in white supremacy, so if an account, however incomplete, of environmentally induced white supremacy can be given, especially from a white source, those rotters can be forced into action.

    The reason I feel it is a very harmful distraction is because there is a critical mass of IQ researchers (the Human Biodiversity crowd) that has an immense interest in the matter. If they can be convinced to substantially test viable environmental models, it can force the hands of governments in poor countries.

    1. The HBD crowd has no power and no influence. Which is good. They don’t deserve to have any power or influence. They’ve failed to police themselves, failed to expunge the Nazi and allied toxic elements from their ranks. They’ve put themselves in an untenable position, and the untenability is deserved. It is not so much that they are wrong, scientifically; it is that they have failed to construct the appropriate cordon sanitaire around their field, screening-out the scum. So, they are now getting what they deserve: obscurity, dismissal and censure.

    2. No one’s hands need to be forced. It is not like that, not a power play thing. It is a general development thing, an economic latitude thing, and a persuasion thing. It is difficult to make environmental changes, and it requires general development, as well as programmatic and administrative funding and persistence.

    For one small example: there are hundreds of salt companies in Pakistan. To achieve total iodization of salt in Pakistan, alone, is a big project. An office must be set up and staffed, the program/regulations need to be economically reasonable for the subject salt companies, there needs to be good followup and testing to ensure compliance, and so on. Further, once such a program is established, it has to be maintained, for decades, which is not a trivial matter. Programs such as iodization programs are often set up and then, for various reasons (usually budget-related) they are partially or entirely disbanded, and things go back to the pre-program state. Get the picture?

    Doing this kind of stuff is a big, long-term deal. My example is of just ONE thing (iodine) in ONE country. Multiple that by a couple dozen factors (not just iodine, but iron, and goitrogens, and omega-3 fatty acids, and environmental lead and mercury and PCBs, and lots of other IQ-relevant things) and then multiply THAT by scores of countries.

    In sum, it is a GREAT BIG HONKIN’ DEAL, a huge long-term project, which requires funding, organization and persistence, probably under the aegis of an institution of the general character and reach of the United Nations, in a wide variety of cultural and political contexts, over decades. See? BIG, BIG DEAL. Not at all a simple matter of “forcing their hands”.

    The HBD crowd will have no role and no influence in the century-long global project that ultimately results in the environmental and human developmental outcomes that, themselves, ultimately result in higher population IQs. One of the reasons for this (apart from what I already mentioned, above) is that the HBD crowd is far, far too obsessed with the narrow matter of IQ, when the real problems that the world faces — i.e. that the human family and that the human project in general faces — are broad environmental and human developmental ones. IQ is simply one “side effect”, albeit an important one (IMO). The proper emphasis is on general development, rather than narrow obsession with a cognitive measure.

    Read More
    • Troll: utu
    • Replies: @anon

    The HBD crowd has no power and no influence.
     

    The “sociological nonsense” like preschool programs, anti-poverty programs, etc., ARE biological and make a modest contribution to the desired outcomes.
     
    I'd say the shift to biological environmental arguments is a step in the direction of the HBD position - which is based on biology - even if the motives aren't always.
    , @Johan Meyer
    Let us start with iodine. I am opposed to iodinated salt as a means of addressing iodine deficiency. Prior to bromine displacing iodine in bakery of bread, most people got their iodine from bread, both in the US and USSR.

    Secondly, most of the world has analogue​s to western racism, be it state nationalist hatred toward other states, ethnic, clan or tribal animosity and nepotism, and so forth. If you wish to address environmental issues of IQ, then you must act to some extent within these confines.

    A Bangladeshi once gave me an example, regadding environment and corruption. Some of his age mates decided that they want to do something about estuary pollution, fish populations and peasant nutrition. They got their necessary academic degrees, paid the necessary bribes to become lower level wildlife managers, and went to work. They showed peasants that if they catch the young fish and release them into ponds, hence protecting them from pollution, then release them back into the rivers once they are large enough, the adults are far healthier, and the population is larger. Catching young fish and consuming them is likely to get one battered now.

    Salt iodination requires that stupid and foolish people conduct themselves wisely.
  171. @Johan Meyer
    China, Russia both had massive increases in life expectancy, despite (because of?) famines (caloric intake limitation?), as did Chile (see Andre Gunder Frank on the de facto famine in the first few years of Pinochet---the open letters to Friedman and Harbeggar (spelling?) and nationmaster or similar for the rise in life expectancy.

    I’m not sure what you are implying. You usually seem open to facts, but the implication in response to my comment that praising Communism shows inferior mental reasoning and self-justification for SJW BS makes me wonder if your post is showing a positive opinion about Communism. It may not be. I checked out your links. The China link showed that life expectancy increased once the Great Leap Forward ended. Not surprising. People were no longer being killed for ideological “impurity”. But the fact that Chinese life expectancy is almost at European levels is at a time when China can no longer be considered Communist. Oh, sure, they are in name, but they have embraced elements of Capitalism so they can compete on the world stage. The Russia link does not specifically support increase in life expectancy that I can find. The comment that specifies this says:

    “You know what he’s leaving out of this? The fact that the USSR doubled the life expectancy by the end of the Stalin-era. In the 60’s at one point it actually surpassed that of the US. The figure he is quoting here is from the present, post-Soviet time. It’s a well-known fact that the fall of the USSR led to a sharp decline in life expectancy. Nice try, pal.”

    This is a deluded opinion. Where is a link to these stats? Can you post it? The Stalin regime was notorious for its propaganda disseminated to the West. Plus, the death of millions of Kulaks and other non-believers would definitely lower the life expectancy, don’t you think?

    Pinochet was a Fascist. Are you saying that a Fascist regime also had increases in life expectancy? If so, what does that have to do with Communism? I may have missed your point.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johan Meyer
    My point is that violent and ideological regimes often do improve life expectancy---the net effect (lengthening by things such as land reforms and very foundational scientific development minus losses due to killing) is often positive. Most of the increase in life expectancy did occur under stalin, though the question of his crimes is separate. Communism was effectively being subject to a small clique and the various forces they unleashed, for good and for evil. I prefer a liberal order, though most of the countries that underwent spectacular growth in the 20th century started as very illiberal---see Dani Rodrik's paper on Taiwan and South Korea. I would like to see the developmental effects in terms of ground work for development achieved under the illiberal regimes, achieved under more liberal regimes.
    , @Johan Meyer
    Robert Lindsay who is left but hbd, had an article on the matter. Unfortunately his links are now dead, though he should be able to find them (etext archive got merged with archive.org if I understand correctly).
  172. @Wizard of Oz
    I was about to suggest to CanSpeccy that we ask you to say just what IQ tests are useful forand how useful they are with any necessary discriminations between different highly correlated measures of g. And I do.... But then a different question occurred to me also.

    Are there commonly used tests of (particularly) verbal abilities which are highly correlated with g and others which are not? If so what would the justification be for using the less g correlated? Has any research been done to show that some occupations require e.g. vast specialised or non-specialised vocabularies that csn be acquired by sheer hard work?

    Interesting question. I don’t have a simple guide to all intelligence tests, but agree that it would be useful. There are overviews in “IQ and human intelligence” Nicholas Mackintosh 2011 and “Human Intelligence” Earl Hunt 2012 , but I don’t have a brief version. A task for someone. The most commonly used are probably Wechsler, Kaufman, Woodcock-Johnson, Raven’s and Cattell.
    On Vocabulary tests I have posted some ideas

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/vocabulary-humanitys-greatest

    Read More
  173. alan2102 says:
    @Santoculto

    Indeed. Life sucked for most white people, too. Poor and working-class whites had it bad. White slavery was a real and terrible thing. Do not mistake what I am saying as a buy-in to the racial reductionistic narrative that locates the blame for everything on whites. That’s not the case, and is not at all what I believe. White supremacy has been responsible for a ton of atrocities and outrages, but it is not responsible for everything, not even close.
     
    I know about working classe whites. How english workers were [ab]used specially during the first and second period of industrial revolution. I mostly agree in this part.

    I believe there are tons of superiority, equivalence and inferiority about everything in the world, even between races, even this scenarios can change completely and now who is the predator can become the prey, but i think when you recognize important superior aspect of yourself in comparison to other people, you don't legimitate you to do what you want with this people.

    True. If you’re in a survival situation, you had best have some of those reptilian qualities. But then, 99.9% of us live, 99.9% of the time, in situations where those qualities are at best useless, and at worst destructive.
     
    I think to the castle be safe enough for us don't worry about our own survive, sentinels are extremely important to protect us/the castle.

    Unfortunately the same predator detector skills that remain ''the castle'' safe tend to make sentinels more insensitive about other important issues.

    The issue is not whether or not you believe that “corrupt ones must be jailed”, because of course EVERYONE believes that. The issue is WHAT YOU CAN SEE; specifically, what corruption and criminality you are capable of seeing. Most people, for example, do not see that the prison-industrial complex is a gigantic immoral and criminal enterprise that should be dismantled immediately. Most people do not see this because they are in the grip of a right-wing mass media and right-wing education, and are deluged with right-wing propaganda day in and day out, with almost never any serious critique.
     
    Why prison-industrial complex must be dismantled**

    Do you believe most of prisoners are innocent*

    Why prison-industrial complex must be dismantled**
    Do you believe most of prisoners are innocent*

    Yes, as presently constituted — as the racist and human-rights obscenity that it is — of course it should be dismantled. That does not mean that all prisoners are innocent or that none need to be detained, perhaps in a prison-like institution. There IS such thing as dangerous, anti-social criminals who should be locked up. But the prison-industrial complex as it exists is an utter human rights outrage, housing huge numbers of perps of victimless “crimes”, in addition to other faults, and if you spend even one hour looking into it you will agree with me, if you are a decent human being.

    https://www.libertariannews.org/2011/09/29/victimless-crime-constitutes-86-of-the-american-prison-population/

    Victimless Crime Constitutes 86% of The Federal Prison Population

    http://returntonow.net/2016/06/13/prison-labor-is-the-new-american-slavery/

    How Prison Labor is the New American Slavery and Most of Us Unknowingly Support it

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Jim_Crow

    The New Jim Crow

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    ''Victimless'' is a poor criteria.

    Any type of crime against other, specially if s/he is innocent, cannot be tolerated.

    I believe there is a factor g too for criminality. Someone who steal other people by futile motivation already have impulse to do other bad things, specially with inocent people.

    Crimes is a manifestation of extreme lack of control as well lack of real empathy. Less when you practice against other criminal, ;)

    Maybe we have the same ''new jim crow'' in places like Norway, ;)
  174. @Anonymous White Male
    I'm not sure what you are implying. You usually seem open to facts, but the implication in response to my comment that praising Communism shows inferior mental reasoning and self-justification for SJW BS makes me wonder if your post is showing a positive opinion about Communism. It may not be. I checked out your links. The China link showed that life expectancy increased once the Great Leap Forward ended. Not surprising. People were no longer being killed for ideological "impurity". But the fact that Chinese life expectancy is almost at European levels is at a time when China can no longer be considered Communist. Oh, sure, they are in name, but they have embraced elements of Capitalism so they can compete on the world stage. The Russia link does not specifically support increase in life expectancy that I can find. The comment that specifies this says:

    "You know what he’s leaving out of this? The fact that the USSR doubled the life expectancy by the end of the Stalin-era. In the 60’s at one point it actually surpassed that of the US. The figure he is quoting here is from the present, post-Soviet time. It’s a well-known fact that the fall of the USSR led to a sharp decline in life expectancy. Nice try, pal."

    This is a deluded opinion. Where is a link to these stats? Can you post it? The Stalin regime was notorious for its propaganda disseminated to the West. Plus, the death of millions of Kulaks and other non-believers would definitely lower the life expectancy, don't you think?

    Pinochet was a Fascist. Are you saying that a Fascist regime also had increases in life expectancy? If so, what does that have to do with Communism? I may have missed your point.

    My point is that violent and ideological regimes often do improve life expectancy—the net effect (lengthening by things such as land reforms and very foundational scientific development minus losses due to killing) is often positive. Most of the increase in life expectancy did occur under stalin, though the question of his crimes is separate. Communism was effectively being subject to a small clique and the various forces they unleashed, for good and for evil. I prefer a liberal order, though most of the countries that underwent spectacular growth in the 20th century started as very illiberal—see Dani Rodrik’s paper on Taiwan and South Korea. I would like to see the developmental effects in terms of ground work for development achieved under the illiberal regimes, achieved under more liberal regimes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous White Male
    Well, you're welcome to your opinion. Land reform? How do you quantify that? The Kulaks possessed their own land prior to Stalin's reforms. He basically stole their land and gave it to the State. Sure, that's a "reform", but is it a "liberal" reform as you define it? And again, I don't see how you can posit an increase in life expectancy when millions were killed in engineered (which may be debatable) famines and during WWII (which is not debatable). Think about that. How can you possibly say there was an increase in life expectancy when maybe 30 to 40 million people died due to famine and 25 million due to WWII. Won't those reductions in life spans skew life expectancy results? I think we can state that all they could do would be to reduce national life expectancy. So, where are reliable statistics that support your original contention? And are they verified by any non-Soviet source?
  175. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Johan Meyer
    Really? Based on which observations?

    Based on observations of SJWs, often ex teachers, who know that some part of group differences is genetic but won’t admit it.

    Knowing this leaves them with two choicess:
    1) raise the lower group
    or
    2) lower the upper group
    but raising the lower group requires first admitting they were wrong so they choose option (2) – the mass institutional child abuse of white children in schools over “privilege”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johan Meyer
    Let the chips fall where they may. There are some confounds, though---irrespective of genetic causation, stupid children will not get smarter if lead is causal, and blacks are more likely in the US to live in lead painted structures.
  176. @Anonymous White Male
    I'm not sure what you are implying. You usually seem open to facts, but the implication in response to my comment that praising Communism shows inferior mental reasoning and self-justification for SJW BS makes me wonder if your post is showing a positive opinion about Communism. It may not be. I checked out your links. The China link showed that life expectancy increased once the Great Leap Forward ended. Not surprising. People were no longer being killed for ideological "impurity". But the fact that Chinese life expectancy is almost at European levels is at a time when China can no longer be considered Communist. Oh, sure, they are in name, but they have embraced elements of Capitalism so they can compete on the world stage. The Russia link does not specifically support increase in life expectancy that I can find. The comment that specifies this says:

    "You know what he’s leaving out of this? The fact that the USSR doubled the life expectancy by the end of the Stalin-era. In the 60’s at one point it actually surpassed that of the US. The figure he is quoting here is from the present, post-Soviet time. It’s a well-known fact that the fall of the USSR led to a sharp decline in life expectancy. Nice try, pal."

    This is a deluded opinion. Where is a link to these stats? Can you post it? The Stalin regime was notorious for its propaganda disseminated to the West. Plus, the death of millions of Kulaks and other non-believers would definitely lower the life expectancy, don't you think?

    Pinochet was a Fascist. Are you saying that a Fascist regime also had increases in life expectancy? If so, what does that have to do with Communism? I may have missed your point.

    Robert Lindsay who is left but hbd, had an article on the matter. Unfortunately his links are now dead, though he should be able to find them (etext archive got merged with archive.org if I understand correctly).

    Read More
  177. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @alan2102

    The reason I feel it is a very harmful distraction is because there is a critical mass of IQ researchers (the Human Biodiversity crowd) that has an immense interest in the matter. If they can be convinced to substantially test viable environmental models, it can force the hands of governments in poor countries.
     
    1. The HBD crowd has no power and no influence. Which is good. They don't deserve to have any power or influence. They've failed to police themselves, failed to expunge the Nazi and allied toxic elements from their ranks. They've put themselves in an untenable position, and the untenability is deserved. It is not so much that they are wrong, scientifically; it is that they have failed to construct the appropriate cordon sanitaire around their field, screening-out the scum. So, they are now getting what they deserve: obscurity, dismissal and censure.

    2. No one's hands need to be forced. It is not like that, not a power play thing. It is a general development thing, an economic latitude thing, and a persuasion thing. It is difficult to make environmental changes, and it requires general development, as well as programmatic and administrative funding and persistence.

    For one small example: there are hundreds of salt companies in Pakistan. To achieve total iodization of salt in Pakistan, alone, is a big project. An office must be set up and staffed, the program/regulations need to be economically reasonable for the subject salt companies, there needs to be good followup and testing to ensure compliance, and so on. Further, once such a program is established, it has to be maintained, for decades, which is not a trivial matter. Programs such as iodization programs are often set up and then, for various reasons (usually budget-related) they are partially or entirely disbanded, and things go back to the pre-program state. Get the picture?

    Doing this kind of stuff is a big, long-term deal. My example is of just ONE thing (iodine) in ONE country. Multiple that by a couple dozen factors (not just iodine, but iron, and goitrogens, and omega-3 fatty acids, and environmental lead and mercury and PCBs, and lots of other IQ-relevant things) and then multiply THAT by scores of countries.

    In sum, it is a GREAT BIG HONKIN' DEAL, a huge long-term project, which requires funding, organization and persistence, probably under the aegis of an institution of the general character and reach of the United Nations, in a wide variety of cultural and political contexts, over decades. See? BIG, BIG DEAL. Not at all a simple matter of "forcing their hands".

    The HBD crowd will have no role and no influence in the century-long global project that ultimately results in the environmental and human developmental outcomes that, themselves, ultimately result in higher population IQs. One of the reasons for this (apart from what I already mentioned, above) is that the HBD crowd is far, far too obsessed with the narrow matter of IQ, when the real problems that the world faces -- i.e. that the human family and that the human project in general faces -- are broad environmental and human developmental ones. IQ is simply one "side effect", albeit an important one (IMO). The proper emphasis is on general development, rather than narrow obsession with a cognitive measure.

    The HBD crowd has no power and no influence.

    The “sociological nonsense” like preschool programs, anti-poverty programs, etc., ARE biological and make a modest contribution to the desired outcomes.

    I’d say the shift to biological environmental arguments is a step in the direction of the HBD position – which is based on biology – even if the motives aren’t always.

    Read More
  178. utu says:
    @alan2102

    I am sure you can suggest some reading material. Publications…
     
    I would love to, but I'm no longer in the business. I moved on.

    Years ago, around 2003-2010, I undertook a detailed study of this stuff -- environmental, nutritional and related influences on brain development and IQ. My intention was to write a book on the subject. I was shocked by how much stuff was being ignored by the (so-called) "race realists", and by how studied was their ignorance. I mean, for "realists" who supposedly had a passionate interest in IQ and influences on IQ, it was amazing how they apparently had never lifted a finger to learn about the many and sometimes profound influences on IQ! My intention was to remedy that.

    But, several things kept me from completing the project. For one, it is a LOT of work, since there is such a large literature on these subjects, and most of it is scattered; composing and organizing it all is a massive task, and an UNPAID task. I am not rich, or a tenured professor, or someone working on a comfortable stipend. Also, I am not the best person to do the job, not having the best qualifications (to put it mildly! high school dropout autodidact). Also, to some extent I lost interest as I came to realize that the whole "race realism" thing was largely a tempest in a teapot. At the time (and occasionally even now! see my fiery posts up thread) I felt like I had to fight the ugly tide of right-wingery associated with "race realism". But the truth is that I don't, because "race realism" has no power or influence and is not going anywhere. The great majority of people reject it -- sometimes for poor reasons, but reject it they do, anyway. They sense its toxic (Stormfront-type) associations and they recoil in horror, as they should. So it is really not something that urgently calls for my activist efforts. "Race realism" will sputter along, impotently, for decades, but never go anywhere. Aside from a small coterie of rather dumb barely-literate Nazis (like AWM, here), no one is paying attention. Which is good.

    Anyway, that's my story. Sorry I can't give you a quick-'n-easy list of links to back up what I said. I should probably comb through the many megabytes of material, and many hundreds of citations, that I stored on disk, and come up with some kind of partial presentation (shy of the book that I intended, but at least something). That would be a good thing to do. If I get a month or so free, and some ambition for it, I might just do it.

    But, several things kept me from completing the project. For one, it is a LOT of work, since there is such a large literature on these subjects, and most of it is scattered; composing and organizing it all is a massive task, and an UNPAID task.

    So you are lazy person with strong ideological beliefs.

    not having the best qualifications (to put it mildly! high school dropout autodidact)

    That shows plus some personality disorder. Are you sure you are getting right micro elements balance in your diet?

    Read More
    • Replies: @alan2102

    So you are lazy person with strong ideological beliefs.
     
    Yes, a couple thousand hours of unpaid labor on the project, with reluctance to continue when contemplating many thousands MORE unpaid hours, sure does prove that I am a lazy ass mofo.
  179. @James Thompson
    thank you for this interesting comment. I am looking at blood lead dose-response relationships at the moment.

    I am glad to have stirred your interest. The dose responses will invariably mix sporadic and continuous dose, often in the same individual, so the dose response to BLL I expect will be a function of time and place of the study. Sporadic dose will necessarily introduce very wide variance if blood rather than bone is used as tissue.

    Read More
  180. @anon
    Based on observations of SJWs, often ex teachers, who know that some part of group differences is genetic but won't admit it.

    Knowing this leaves them with two choicess:
    1) raise the lower group
    or
    2) lower the upper group
    but raising the lower group requires first admitting they were wrong so they choose option (2) - the mass institutional child abuse of white children in schools over "privilege".

    Let the chips fall where they may. There are some confounds, though—irrespective of genetic causation, stupid children will not get smarter if lead is causal, and blacks are more likely in the US to live in lead painted structures.

    Read More
  181. @Mao Cheng Ji

    So-called races are so evident and important that liberals are those who are more concerned and repetitive about it.
     
    Yes, liberals are very much into 'races'; it's one of their favorite identities.

    I disagree that 'races' are evident: there are different definitions, borderlines are very much blurred already, and likely to become more and more blurred in the future, until this particular classification will stop making sense completely.

    I also disagree that it is important (essential). A very similar characteristic was customary essentialized not so long ago: hereditary nobility, hereditary royalty. It seemed extremely important only 200 years ago, and yet it's almost completely gone now, and hardly anyone is bothered by its disappearance...

    Yes, liberals are very much into ‘races’; it’s one of their favorite identities.

    I disagree that ‘races’ are evident: there are different definitions, borderlines are very much blurred already, and likely to become more and more blurred in the future, until this particular classification will stop making sense completely.

    It’s not a good thing, i live in Brazil and most people here, who are mixed race, are not superior than anyone, otherwise, it’s a nightmare for real smart people.

    The extermination of pure races, primarily white caucasian race, is the globalistic/global elitistic process. It’s not good in any instance. I would no had problem with it if were based on truth and uncritical ideals but it’s not.

    You disagree. It’s extremely easy to discern a caucasian blue eyes person from a black african dark skin person. I’m not talking about what you disagree or what i disagree, but what is, whatever our personal opinions about it.

    hereditary nobility, hereditary royalty. It seemed extremely important only 200 years ago, and yet it’s almost completely gone now, and hardly anyone is bothered by its disappearance…

    You can’t compare a true social construct with races, primarily, a biological construct.

    Anyone with ”load-poisoned” brains as lieberals, seems