The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 JayMan ArchiveBlogview
Rebutting Chanda Chisala

Chanda Chisala has been producing pile after pile of nonsense for quite some time. At first, I was content with simply leaving comments at his posts refuting his rubbish because it was rather easy to point out where he was full of baloney. Since then, I’ve been banned by him, mostly for my signature flair. :)

I intended to continue to ignore his nonsense since it was such obvious rubbish that it didn’t seem to be worth my (now very precious) time. But then I realized the value of having nonsense essays picked apart for the nonsense they are. Rebuttals are highly valuable to skeptical readers who doubt nonsense but can’t quite put their finger on the problems themselves. So, in that service, I write this rebuttal to Chisala’s latest piece.

Towards a Theory of Everyone

Chisala’s theory is that different human groups differ in the degree of genetic canalization, and that explains the differences in average IQ between groups. It seems he lifted the concept of genetic canalization from Greg Cochran, who I’ll let describe the phenomenon. From Survival of the Flattest | West Hunter :

Genetic canalization is the extent to which an organism is buffered against the effects of mutations. Waddington said “developmental reactions, as they occur in organisms submitted to natural selection…are adjusted so as to bring about one definite end-result regardless of minor variations in conditions during the course of the reaction”. Canalization can act to buffer against environmental perturbations, and selection for resistance to such environmental noise may also produce resistance to genetic noise. But right now I’m thinking about genetic canalization.

Up to some point, the effects of not too many, not too serious mutations would be buffered: those mutations wouldn’t change the phenotype. In the same way, your typical tractor is not designed to nanometer tolerances: parts can be somewhat out of spec – up to some limit – without messing up performance.

Canalization is a product of natural selection. There would be stronger selection for efficient canalization in a species with more genetic load

It might explain why load doesn’t seem to have much effect on IQ over most of the range, why we haven’t seen general IQ depression in the children of old men.

So Chisala’s idea is that certain racial groups have greater levels of canalization, and that makes them more resistant to environmental stresses that might lower average IQ.

Oh God! Where to begin….

It’s hard for me tell if Chisala really believes what he’s saying. Because the truth of the matter is that he’s a bullshit artist, either wittingly or unwittingly. It appears that he has only a superficial understanding of the matters he discusses, and he tries to weave together cherry-picked pieces of information into a seemingly convincing story – at least for those who don’t know any better.

First of all, Chisala is claiming that there are no “genetic” group differences in IQ. Rather, every group has the same average IQ potential, but each group has a different level of canalization, thanks to natural selection (and this is not even genetic canalization – as in resistance to mutations – as Cochran discussed, but resistance to purported environmental insults). This makes each more or less resistant to the purportedly IQ-depressing effects of deprived environment. So first it’s not genetic, but it is? Which is it, man?

I don’t even want to imagine what reaction this particular proposition would garner if you ran it by this guy. —>

Second, Chisala seems to have no understanding of the concepts of elite samples, founder effects, measurement error, sampling bias, or of basic statistical principles like statistics of small numbers. That’s not even to mention his apparent lack of understanding of the breeder’s equation (but at least there he has plenty of company). He seems to be mystified by apparent incongruities he encounters in his cherry-picked (and often outdated) samples because of his ignorance of these important concepts and many other facts.

I’m not going to debunk Chisala’s claims point-by-point, because, really that’s not necessary (and his piece is much to confused to make that a worthwhile endeavor). Instead, I’m going to point out some key facts make his claims ridiculous.

One of those key facts is this:

Brain_Size_Map

There are global differences in brain size. Brain size is certainly related to intelligence, both on the individual level (Pietschnig et al 2015) and (even more so) on the group level (though the both the group level and individual level correlations are less than 1.0). In order for Chisala’s idea to work, these environmental insults must also cause certain racial group differences in brain size.

But, as we know, it’s not outside the realm of possibility that environmental insults can affect brain size (see the Zika virus). And sure, sub-Saharan Africa is loaded with pathogens and other environmental insults. But racial differences in brain size are seen between people of European, African, and Asian ancestry in the United States (from Rushton & Jensen, 2010):

Armed Forces Brain Size Rushton Jensen

(At this point, of course, we cue the sociologist’s fallacy invoking the poorer environments of Blacks even in the U.S.) But, Chisala is claiming Blacks are more susceptable to environmental insults that supposedly affect IQ – insults that (save perhaps iodine deficiency) have not been shown to actually impact IQ in any way. I’ll go into more detail in a future post, but there is little solid evidence for a negative impact of most supposed environmental insults on IQ.

For now, I’ll give you Greg Cochran on this (from The Great IQ Depression | West Hunter):

We hear that poverty can sap brainpower, reduce frontal lobe function, induce the fantods, etc. But exactly what do we mean by ‘poverty’? If we’re talking about an absolute, rather than relative, standard of living, most of the world today must be in poverty, as well as almost everyone who lived much before the present. Most Chinese are poorer than the official US poverty level, right? The US had fairly rapid economic growth until the last generation or so, so if you go very far back in time, almost everyone was poor, by modern standards. Even those who were considered rich at the time suffered from zero prenatal care, largely useless medicine, tabletless high schools, and slow Internet connections. They had to ride horses that had lousy acceleration and pooped all over the place.

In particular, if all this poverty-gives-you-emerods stuff is true, scholastic achievement should have collapsed in the Great Depression – and with the miracle of epigenetics, most of us should still be suffering those bad effects.

But somehow none of this seems to have gone through the formality of actually happening.

Of course, it’s also worth mentioning that brain structure differs detectably by race, as previously discussed:

a new paper, Fan et al 2015, that the details of cortical surface structure of the brain is highly predictive of genetic ancestry. Indeed, as Fan et al put it:

Here, we demonstrate that the three-dimensional geometry of cortical surface is highly predictive of individuals’ genetic ancestry in West Africa, Europe, East Asia, and America, even though their genetic background has been shaped by multiple waves of migratory and admixture events. The geometry of the cortical surface contains richer information about ancestry than the areal variability of the cortical surface, independent of total brain volumes. Besides explaining more ancestry variance than other brain imaging measurements, the 3D geometry of the cortical surface further characterizes distinct regional patterns in the folding and gyrification.

Indeed, an earlier paper from this team (Bakken, Dale, and Schork, 2011) found that this works within racial groups as well, as the case with Europeans (see also the section Intraracial Group Variation below):

In our group’s previous study, we found that area measures of cortical surface and total
brain volumes of individuals of European descent in the United States correlate significantly with their ancestral geographic locations in Europe

brain structure ancestrySee also Brain Topography | West Hunter and Psychological comments: Racial brain differences

Then there is the work David Piffer on polygenetic score. Basically, the known genomic hits to IQ vary in frequency between the different populations highly according to average IQ. From Piffer 2015:

Published Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS), reporting the presence of alleles exhibiting significant and replicable associations with IQ, are reviewed. The average between-population frequency (polygenic score) of nine alleles positively and significantly associated with intelligence is strongly correlated to country-level IQ (r = .91). Factor analysis of allele frequencies furthermore identified a metagene with a similar correlation to country IQ (r = .86). The majority of the alleles (seven out of nine) loaded positively on this metagene. Allele frequencies varied by continent in a way that corresponds with observed population differences in average phenotypic intelligence.

Here is a scatter plot from the paper:

Piffer polygene plot

Going even beyond this, if we follow Chisala’s logic and assume that somehow adverse reactions to the environment are responsible for the size, structural, and performance differences of African brains relative to other groups, then we have another problem: the performance difference between different human groups isn’t a 20th and 21st century phenomenon only – it goes back for the entirety of recorded history.

As we’ve seen before, and as Bryan Caplan recounts, the differences between human groups in development goes back thousands of years – such that level of development as far back as 1000 B.C. is predictive of development today. Indeed, as Easterly, Coming, and Gong (2007) recount:

We assemble a dataset on technology adoption in 1000 B.C., 0 A.D., and 1500 A.D. for the predecessors of today’s nation states. We find that this very old history of technology adoption is surprisingly significant for today’s national development outcomes. Although our strongest results are for 1500 A.D., we find that even technology as old as 1000 B.C. is associated with today’s outcomes in some plausible specifications.

It’s not like the poor performers and the strong performers of today are a new thing. They’ve been poor performers and strong performers throughout history (by and large). Indeed, in sub-Saharan Africa (emphasis mine):

Why this meandering reminiscence of mine about a random ruin in Turkey? Because sub-Saharan Africa has remarkably few ruins for its immense size.

This fact is not well known. It is so hazy in the contemporary mind that Henry Louis Gates managed to sell PBS on a six episode miniseries about African ruins called The Wonders of Africa without, apparently, anybody in PBS management calling his bluff about the lack of wonders that his camera crew would wind up documenting in one of the most boring documentary series of the 21st Century.

By contrast, as we know, there was plenty of development in East Asia and Europe, especially Northwestern Europe:

charles-murray-human-accomplishment-map-european-core-hajnal-line

 

charles-murray-origins-of-significant-figures-1800-1950

As Staffan put it, “we can’t adjust for their entire history.”

In any case, this recent nonsense idea of Chisala, aside from running afoul Occam’s Razor, is his attempt to undercut the rebuttal to the deprivation argument. That is, it is a common argument of blank slatists that poverty and other forms of deprivation are responsible for differences in average IQ and national performance. Aside from emptiness of the whole deprivation argument, as noted above, there is the fact (as pointed out by me in Welcome Readers from Portugal!) that outliers to this pattern of deprivation and IQ all perform in accordance to their measured IQ, not according to their level of deprivation. Poor rural Chinese perform nearly as well in IQ and scholastically as the other East Asian societies do. Citizens in wealthy Arab oil states perform as badly as those in poorer ones which lack oil. I’m sure Chisala doesn’t like this particular uncomfortable fact, so I suspect he concocted his feeble theory in part to try to nullify this unwelcome reality.

And finally, there is the fundamental problem that Chisala doesn’t understand either evolution or the formula that guides it, the breeder’ s equation. There is no reason to suspect that human groups that have been separated for tens of thousands of years in vastly different environments would be the same in all their cognitive and behavioral qualities. In fact, a priori we should expect them not to be, since such equivalence after so many generations of separate evolution is nigh impossible.

I expected most of this to be obvious, which is why I haven’t paid too much attention to Chisala’s posts. But, I may have overestimated both his impact and people’s ability to spot the obvious, hence, this writing.

Commenters, please be aware of my comment policy.

 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
[]
  1. I’m not sure the brain size and race data proves much by itself. There’s the obvious explanation of latitude affecting brain size irrespective of it’s affect on intelligence. The North American Indians(outside the South) and Inuit have brain sizes comparable to larger than White people, yet they have mediocre IQs.

    There’s also random ‘drift’ which might affect the brain sizes of groups. One that map you’ll notice that the Indians in the American South have brain sizes similar to Africans, while their racial cousins at the opposite end of the continent, at the same latitude, have brain sizes similar to East Asians.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    I’m not sure the brain size and race data proves much by itself. There’s the obvious explanation of latitude affecting brain size irrespective of it’s affect on intelligence. The North American Indians(outside the South) and Inuit have brain sizes comparable to larger than White people, yet they have mediocre IQs.
     
    Their average IQs are in the upper 80s and low to mid 90s. That's higher than average for tropical peoples, with smaller brains.

    In any case, it wasn't meant to prove anything by itself, which is why it's here with other data.

    , @pyrrhus
    The correlation between brain size and IQ is .50, not 1.00, and in any event this is only subsidiary data....
    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
    http://www.unz.com/jman/rebutting-chanda-chisala/#comment-1317090
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Piffer seems to have reanalyzed his data and calculated somewhat higher scores for Africans in both height and iq.

    “I computed two polygenic scores (mean population frequencies): ancestral and derived. Then I created a composite score by averaging them. This gives equal weight to ancestral and derived alleles (Piffer, 2015b).The end result is that populations with higher baseline frequencies of derived alleles (such as Africans) obtain a higher score after this correction, because more weight is given to ancestral alleles.”

    “We can see that the ranking of corrected polygenic scores for height and IQ gives higher scores to Africans compared to the uncorrected scores…”

    https://topseudoscience.wordpress.com

    “Derived alleles,corrected polygenic scores and height”
    The matches between calculated iq’s and predicted ones(from psychometry) are imperfect(in the most recent re—analyses).

    In his preceeding entry at “toppseudoscience” , Piffer finds that
    “A discrepancy with IQ estimates is that East Asians lag behind Europeans and that South Asians and Hispanics don’t perform better than sub-Saharan Africans, a finding that is difficult to explain at present.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    Piffer seems to have reanalyzed his data and calculated somewhat higher scores for Africans in both height and iq.
     
    His scores shouldn't be taken as a perfect gauge of average IQ, only that it correlates with global group variation quite well.
  3. @Jason Bayz
    I'm not sure the brain size and race data proves much by itself. There's the obvious explanation of latitude affecting brain size irrespective of it's affect on intelligence. The North American Indians(outside the South) and Inuit have brain sizes comparable to larger than White people, yet they have mediocre IQs.

    There's also random 'drift' which might affect the brain sizes of groups. One that map you'll notice that the Indians in the American South have brain sizes similar to Africans, while their racial cousins at the opposite end of the continent, at the same latitude, have brain sizes similar to East Asians.

    I’m not sure the brain size and race data proves much by itself. There’s the obvious explanation of latitude affecting brain size irrespective of it’s affect on intelligence. The North American Indians(outside the South) and Inuit have brain sizes comparable to larger than White people, yet they have mediocre IQs.

    Their average IQs are in the upper 80s and low to mid 90s. That’s higher than average for tropical peoples, with smaller brains.

    In any case, it wasn’t meant to prove anything by itself, which is why it’s here with other data.

    Read More
  4. @Jm8
    Piffer seems to have reanalyzed his data and calculated somewhat higher scores for Africans in both height and iq.

    "I computed two polygenic scores (mean population frequencies): ancestral and derived. Then I created a composite score by averaging them. This gives equal weight to ancestral and derived alleles (Piffer, 2015b).The end result is that populations with higher baseline frequencies of derived alleles (such as Africans) obtain a higher score after this correction, because more weight is given to ancestral alleles."

    "We can see that the ranking of corrected polygenic scores for height and IQ gives higher scores to Africans compared to the uncorrected scores..."

    https://topseudoscience.wordpress.com

    "Derived alleles,corrected polygenic scores and height"
    The matches between calculated iq’s and predicted ones(from psychometry) are imperfect(in the most recent re—analyses).

    In his preceeding entry at “toppseudoscience” , Piffer finds that
    “A discrepancy with IQ estimates is that East Asians lag behind Europeans and that South Asians and Hispanics don’t perform better than sub-Saharan Africans, a finding that is difficult to explain at present.”

    Piffer seems to have reanalyzed his data and calculated somewhat higher scores for Africans in both height and iq.

    His scores shouldn’t be taken as a perfect gauge of average IQ, only that it correlates with global group variation quite well.

    Read More
  5. JayMan said:

    Poor rural Chinese perform nearly as well in IQ and scholastically as the other East Asian societies do.

    According to Jason Malloy @ Human Varieties:

    I have not carefully examined them, but many studies from rural China report IQ scores in the 90s, 80s and lower.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    According to Jason Malloy @ Human Varieties:

    I have not carefully examined them, but many studies from rural China report IQ scores in the 90s, 80s and lower.
     

    I'm going by the PISA data, which reports a much higher score. Getting precise IQ scores is a very messy business for a variety of reasons, so I tend not to get caught up in the minutia.
  6. @B.B.
    JayMan said:

    Poor rural Chinese perform nearly as well in IQ and scholastically as the other East Asian societies do.
     
    According to Jason Malloy @ Human Varieties:

    I have not carefully examined them, but many studies from rural China report IQ scores in the 90s, 80s and lower.
     

    According to Jason Malloy @ Human Varieties:

    I have not carefully examined them, but many studies from rural China report IQ scores in the 90s, 80s and lower.

    I’m going by the PISA data, which reports a much higher score. Getting precise IQ scores is a very messy business for a variety of reasons, so I tend not to get caught up in the minutia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @B.B.

    I’m going by the PISA data, which reports a much higher score. Getting precise IQ scores is a very messy business for a variety of reasons, so I tend not to get caught up in the minutia.
     
    Only data from Shanghai has been officially released, and there has been some contradictory claims made about what is going on in regards to the unreleased PISA data for the rest of China:

    http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2014/01/08-shanghai-pisa-loveless

  7. @JayMan

    According to Jason Malloy @ Human Varieties:

    I have not carefully examined them, but many studies from rural China report IQ scores in the 90s, 80s and lower.
     

    I'm going by the PISA data, which reports a much higher score. Getting precise IQ scores is a very messy business for a variety of reasons, so I tend not to get caught up in the minutia.

    I’m going by the PISA data, which reports a much higher score. Getting precise IQ scores is a very messy business for a variety of reasons, so I tend not to get caught up in the minutia.

    Only data from Shanghai has been officially released, and there has been some contradictory claims made about what is going on in regards to the unreleased PISA data for the rest of China:

    http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2014/01/08-shanghai-pisa-loveless

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    Follow the link to my post "Welcome Readers from Portugal."
  8. @Jason Bayz
    I'm not sure the brain size and race data proves much by itself. There's the obvious explanation of latitude affecting brain size irrespective of it's affect on intelligence. The North American Indians(outside the South) and Inuit have brain sizes comparable to larger than White people, yet they have mediocre IQs.

    There's also random 'drift' which might affect the brain sizes of groups. One that map you'll notice that the Indians in the American South have brain sizes similar to Africans, while their racial cousins at the opposite end of the continent, at the same latitude, have brain sizes similar to East Asians.

    The correlation between brain size and IQ is .50, not 1.00, and in any event this is only subsidiary data….

    Read More
  9. Really outstanding post JayMan! I’m sure that Chisala read Greg Cochran’s recent post on canalization (and that’s a good thing!) and cooked up this nonsense, but thanks to your meticulous debunking, we all learned quite a bit…
    The Chisalas will never go away, so keep your quill sharpened….

    Read More
  10. Hi JM

    I have an idea for what I think would make for an interesting blog post.

    When stating average intelligence of nations in terms of IQ one presumes to know the distribution of g across all the inhabitants of planet three, such that a nation with average IQ 100 is at the 50th percentile of the species. But there is of course no such thing as an Earth-normed IQ test to power this analysis, and scientific studies have to use a variety of other sources of data to proxy the idealized information.

    So, write a blog post about the various kinds of data sources used to construct the proxy, the methodologies employed, and the reasoning behind them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim
    The average IQ of humanity is roughly 90 not 100.
  11. @B.B.

    I’m going by the PISA data, which reports a much higher score. Getting precise IQ scores is a very messy business for a variety of reasons, so I tend not to get caught up in the minutia.
     
    Only data from Shanghai has been officially released, and there has been some contradictory claims made about what is going on in regards to the unreleased PISA data for the rest of China:

    http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2014/01/08-shanghai-pisa-loveless

    Follow the link to my post “Welcome Readers from Portugal.”

    Read More
  12. The odd and scary thing about liberals and their clinging to the blank slate theory with its concomitant emphasis on environmental causes is that they are so willing to propose social theories that tamper with race and therefore brain structure and yet they are adamantly opposed to genetic engineering by Monsanto and others.

    Quite literally, they don’t know what they are (or may be) doing and yet they barge along as though they were infallible.

    Read More
  13. @Ryan
    Hi JM

    I have an idea for what I think would make for an interesting blog post.

    When stating average intelligence of nations in terms of IQ one presumes to know the distribution of g across all the inhabitants of planet three, such that a nation with average IQ 100 is at the 50th percentile of the species. But there is of course no such thing as an Earth-normed IQ test to power this analysis, and scientific studies have to use a variety of other sources of data to proxy the idealized information.

    So, write a blog post about the various kinds of data sources used to construct the proxy, the methodologies employed, and the reasoning behind them.

    The average IQ of humanity is roughly 90 not 100.

    Read More
  14. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_capacitance
    An evolutionary capacitor is a molecular switch mechanism that can “toggle” genetic variation between hidden and revealed states.[1] If some subset of newly revealed variation is adaptive, it becomes fixed by genetic assimilation. After that, the rest of variation, most of which is presumably deleterious, can be switched off, leaving the population with a newly evolved advantageous trait, but no long-term handicap.

    There is something in what he says, inasmuch as stress is likely to bring qualities previously buffered/hidden by canalisation to full expression.

    Read More
  15. You lost all your cred by that first pic, which doesn’t even make a distinction between 2 entirely separate races in India, Aryan and Dravidian. The 500 million or so Aryans in India are specifically the “Indo” in the phrase Indo-European people. Aryans occupy the entire top half of the Indian continent and their IQ’s are European in distribution.

    Your maps shows Saudis and other middle easterners (Yemen!) as having a larger brain capacity than Aryans. This is both historically and currently lol-worthy.

    The Chinese maps are entirely irrelevant also. Asians have some measure of IQ but they are severely lacking in other measures, including any ability to think creatively. Their “language” isn’t even letters and words, it’s entirely little pictures ! An alien pygmy + roach combination.

    Methinks you need to first understand what IQ even means.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Numinous

    You lost all your cred by that first pic, which doesn’t even make a distinction between 2 entirely separate races in India, Aryan and Dravidian. The 500 million or so Aryans in India are specifically the “Indo” in the phrase Indo-European people. Aryans occupy the entire top half of the Indian continent and their IQ’s are European in distribution.
     
    Unz.com commenters keep plumbing new depths of ignorance each day. Indo-Aryan and Dravidian are not separate races; racially, Indians have much in common with small levels of clinal change from northwest to south to east. Indo-Aryan and Dravidian are two distinct language families. And your last sentence shows you for a moron; it's southern India that's doing well in the modern world today, plus it has European levels of fertility, whereas some parts of the north has conditions closer to those prevailing in sub-Saharan Africa.
    , @JayMan

    You lost all your cred by that first pic, which doesn’t even make a distinction between 2 entirely separate races in India, Aryan and Dravidian. The 500 million or so Aryans in India are specifically the “Indo” in the phrase Indo-European people. Aryans occupy the entire top half of the Indian continent and their IQ’s are European in distribution.
     
    A) These are based on direct measurements from Beals, Smith, and Dodd 1984. Take it up with them.

    B) What would happen if you ran this by Razib Khan?


    The Chinese maps are entirely irrelevant also. Asians have some measure of IQ but they are severely lacking in other measures, including any ability to think creatively.
     
    If you clicked on the links in the post, you'd find out where I talk about that. I know people don't click links, but you better learn fast.

    Methinks you need to first understand what IQ even means.
     
    Methinks you better think long and hard before commenting again here.
    , @Rdm
    2 separate races in India? Hahaha..... Aryan? lol

    combined with Brahmin, Brahmin Aryan would be so proud of their indian tradition and achievement. What is that?

    - Bending over 400 years for British pounding
    - Can't come up with the nationhood, and yet their Master name it "Indian"
    - No proper language development, and very proud if one can speak A English sentence properly.

    (If you can't capture what's going on, here's what you can observe next time. Throw one Indian (A) into a group that has another Indian (B). If "B" starts talking, you'd see "A" Indian aggressively start talking, even if its rubbish, i.e., to show off their proficiency in English language.)


    Asians have some measure of IQ but they are severely lacking in other measures, including any ability to think creatively.
     
    The last time I saw an Indian creativity is spewing out their master English language and be proud of being a Champion in "Spelling Bee".
  16. @foo
    You lost all your cred by that first pic, which doesn't even make a distinction between 2 entirely separate races in India, Aryan and Dravidian. The 500 million or so Aryans in India are specifically the "Indo" in the phrase Indo-European people. Aryans occupy the entire top half of the Indian continent and their IQ's are European in distribution.

    Your maps shows Saudis and other middle easterners (Yemen!) as having a larger brain capacity than Aryans. This is both historically and currently lol-worthy.

    The Chinese maps are entirely irrelevant also. Asians have some measure of IQ but they are severely lacking in other measures, including any ability to think creatively. Their "language" isn't even letters and words, it's entirely little pictures ! An alien pygmy + roach combination.

    Methinks you need to first understand what IQ even means.

    You lost all your cred by that first pic, which doesn’t even make a distinction between 2 entirely separate races in India, Aryan and Dravidian. The 500 million or so Aryans in India are specifically the “Indo” in the phrase Indo-European people. Aryans occupy the entire top half of the Indian continent and their IQ’s are European in distribution.

    Unz.com commenters keep plumbing new depths of ignorance each day. Indo-Aryan and Dravidian are not separate races; racially, Indians have much in common with small levels of clinal change from northwest to south to east. Indo-Aryan and Dravidian are two distinct language families. And your last sentence shows you for a moron; it’s southern India that’s doing well in the modern world today, plus it has European levels of fertility, whereas some parts of the north has conditions closer to those prevailing in sub-Saharan Africa.

    Read More
  17. @foo
    You lost all your cred by that first pic, which doesn't even make a distinction between 2 entirely separate races in India, Aryan and Dravidian. The 500 million or so Aryans in India are specifically the "Indo" in the phrase Indo-European people. Aryans occupy the entire top half of the Indian continent and their IQ's are European in distribution.

    Your maps shows Saudis and other middle easterners (Yemen!) as having a larger brain capacity than Aryans. This is both historically and currently lol-worthy.

    The Chinese maps are entirely irrelevant also. Asians have some measure of IQ but they are severely lacking in other measures, including any ability to think creatively. Their "language" isn't even letters and words, it's entirely little pictures ! An alien pygmy + roach combination.

    Methinks you need to first understand what IQ even means.

    You lost all your cred by that first pic, which doesn’t even make a distinction between 2 entirely separate races in India, Aryan and Dravidian. The 500 million or so Aryans in India are specifically the “Indo” in the phrase Indo-European people. Aryans occupy the entire top half of the Indian continent and their IQ’s are European in distribution.

    A) These are based on direct measurements from Beals, Smith, and Dodd 1984. Take it up with them.

    B) What would happen if you ran this by Razib Khan?

    The Chinese maps are entirely irrelevant also. Asians have some measure of IQ but they are severely lacking in other measures, including any ability to think creatively.

    If you clicked on the links in the post, you’d find out where I talk about that. I know people don’t click links, but you better learn fast.

    Methinks you need to first understand what IQ even means.

    Methinks you better think long and hard before commenting again here.

    Read More
  18. Immigrant from former USSR [AKA "Florida Resident"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Dear JayMan:
    What do you think about this paper (which I have not read)

    http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6273/564

    by Michael Yudell, Dorothy Roberts, Rob DeSalle, Sarah Tishkoff
    “Taking race out of human genetics”

    ?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Immigrant from former USSR
    Addition to previous comment:
    Author Information

    Michael Yudell1,*,
    Dorothy Roberts2,
    Rob DeSalle3,
    Sarah Tishkoff2
    1Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA.
    2University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA.
    3American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY 10024, USA.
    , @JayMan

    What do you think about this paper (which I have not read)

    http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6273/564

    by Michael Yudell, Dorothy Roberts, Rob DeSalle, Sarah Tishkoff
    “Taking race out of human genetics”
     

    Let's see:

    The four study authors say genetic or biological concepts of race don't stand up to scientific scrutiny. Scientists would be better off using terms like "ancestry" and "population" when considering genetic similarities and differences among groups of people
     

    Stupid is as stupid does.
    , @Jus' Sayin'...
    To paraphrase the authors' argument: "Race has no place in modern physical anthropology. The concept/term ought to be replaced by some other concept/term, e.g., common ancestry, clade, or perhaps breed." They probably should have thought this through a little more before publishing
    , @Jus' Sayin'...
    To paraphrase the authors' argument: "Race has no place in modern physical anthropology. The concept/term ought to be replaced by some other concept/term, e.g., common ancestry, clade, or perhaps breed." They probably should have thought this through a little more before publishing
  19. Immigrant from former USSR [AKA "Florida Resident"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Immigrant from former USSR
    Dear JayMan:
    What do you think about this paper (which I have not read)

    http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6273/564

    by Michael Yudell, Dorothy Roberts, Rob DeSalle, Sarah Tishkoff
    “Taking race out of human genetics”

    ?

    Addition to previous comment:
    Author Information

    Michael Yudell1,*,
    Dorothy Roberts2,
    Rob DeSalle3,
    Sarah Tishkoff2
    1Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA.
    2University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA.
    3American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY 10024, USA.

    Read More
  20. @Immigrant from former USSR
    Dear JayMan:
    What do you think about this paper (which I have not read)

    http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6273/564

    by Michael Yudell, Dorothy Roberts, Rob DeSalle, Sarah Tishkoff
    “Taking race out of human genetics”

    ?

    What do you think about this paper (which I have not read)

    http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6273/564

    by Michael Yudell, Dorothy Roberts, Rob DeSalle, Sarah Tishkoff
    “Taking race out of human genetics”

    Let’s see:

    The four study authors say genetic or biological concepts of race don’t stand up to scientific scrutiny. Scientists would be better off using terms like “ancestry” and “population” when considering genetic similarities and differences among groups of people

    Stupid is as stupid does.

    Read More
  21. @Immigrant from former USSR
    Dear JayMan:
    What do you think about this paper (which I have not read)

    http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6273/564

    by Michael Yudell, Dorothy Roberts, Rob DeSalle, Sarah Tishkoff
    “Taking race out of human genetics”

    ?

    To paraphrase the authors’ argument: “Race has no place in modern physical anthropology. The concept/term ought to be replaced by some other concept/term, e.g., common ancestry, clade, or perhaps breed.” They probably should have thought this through a little more before publishing

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    Race has no place in modern anthropology?

    That's fine. Because the AAA says anthropology is not a science anyway.
  22. @Immigrant from former USSR
    Dear JayMan:
    What do you think about this paper (which I have not read)

    http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6273/564

    by Michael Yudell, Dorothy Roberts, Rob DeSalle, Sarah Tishkoff
    “Taking race out of human genetics”

    ?

    To paraphrase the authors’ argument: “Race has no place in modern physical anthropology. The concept/term ought to be replaced by some other concept/term, e.g., common ancestry, clade, or perhaps breed.” They probably should have thought this through a little more before publishing

    Read More
  23. Thank you for dealing with this person’s drivel. I waded through his first two efforts and felt afterwards that it had been an exceptional waste of my time. He really did not seem to understand, among other things, that there are obvious filters operating when migrations occur. I appreciate that you’ve been willing to sacrifice your time to save that of the rest of us. Also your prose is like crystal spring water compared with Chisala’s muck.

    Read More
  24. Thanks Jayman.

    Although you didn’t explicitly state that it wasn’t the fault of redneck genes, I’ll take what you give me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    Although you didn’t explicitly state that it wasn’t the fault of redneck genes, I’ll take what you give me.
     
    Well, that whole bit was pretty silly, no? Not to mention it would have made Ockham's head explode.
  25. @iffen
    Thanks Jayman.

    Although you didn't explicitly state that it wasn't the fault of redneck genes, I'll take what you give me.

    Although you didn’t explicitly state that it wasn’t the fault of redneck genes, I’ll take what you give me.

    Well, that whole bit was pretty silly, no? Not to mention it would have made Ockham’s head explode.

    Read More
  26. First of all, Chisala is claiming that there are no “genetic” group differences in IQ. Rather, every group has the same average IQ potential, but each group has a different level of canalization, thanks to natural selection (and this is not even genetic canalization – as in resistance to mutations – as Cochran discussed, but resistance to purported environmental insults). This makes each more or less resistant to the purportedly IQ-depressing effects of deprived environment. So first it’s not genetic, but it is? Which is it, man?

    Cochran has an original theory about African marriage practices leading to older fathers and their mutations being responsible for low IQ in Africans. Chisala has reversed Cochran’s theory, and added a bit about canalisation .

    I believe CH Waddington’s idea on this (that I brought it up repeatedly over the last 8 years on Evo and Proud and GNXP before Cochran’s post ) is that under stress the canalised variants can much more easily get expressed. When under stress the hidden genetic variability can become exposed to the full force of natural selection.

    Some weird genetic potentialities are lurking in most people, although one would never know they were there in normal circumstances because they get buffered out rather than coming through to expression The moonshine swilling hillbilly with rotting teeth pumping poisons into his body is going to to be much more likely to have such unusual potentialities come through to expression in his phenotype. If the novel phenotype is advantageous for the particular environment it can spread.

    http://www.unz.com/pfrost/a-hair-color-allele-of-neanderthal/

    Whereas Europeans have eleven MC1Ralleles, Asians have only five, and all five produce the same black hair color (Harding et al., 2000). In short, Asians have fewer alleles and proportionately fewer of these differ phenotypically from the ancestral African allele. It looks as if something downstream prevents these alleles from affecting hair color.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    The moonshine swilling hillbilly with rotting teeth

    Stop it!

    Besides, with Obamacare we can get out teeth fixed and those reprobate tax paying publicans have to pay for it.
    , @Santoculto
    I (sub)develop a otherwise theory where the marriage patterns among africans, very young couples marrying, tend to produce intergenerational accumulative juvenile behavior (lower ''iq'') while among northern europeans, specially, where people tend to marry with older ages since a long time tend to produce relative mature behavior (''average'' ''iq''). Well, just a thiory.
  27. somewhat off topic but ….
    The “the origin of significant figures” map seems to ignore Spanish accomplishment in art ( by “art” I assume they mean painting). Spain has produced some of the best art in Western Civilization, all the way through the 20th century. In my brief encounters with white nationalists I always found it strange how they love to boast about European Art (deservedly so) but never mention Velazquez or Picasso. I watched a David duke video where he went through various European countries and named their achievements. He spent a considerable amount of time talking about Ireland and the Baltics but never mentioned Spain or Italy. What a joke!

    Also, is “music” referring to European Art Music (baroque, classical, romantic)?

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    somewhat off topic but ….
    The “the origin of significant figures” map seems to ignore Spanish accomplishment in art ( by “art” I assume they mean painting). Spain has produced some of the best art in Western Civilization, all the way through the 20th century. In my brief encounters with white nationalists I always found it strange how they love to boast about European Art (deservedly so) but never mention Velazquez or Picasso.
     
    I've had my disagreements with White nationalists.

    If you examine Charles Murray's map, there are a few spots in Spain. I would recommend looking at his data if you are curious.

    , @AndrewR
    While my political beliefs are primarily "white nationalist" in nature, I've found, to my great dismay, that white nationalists tend to possess personalities, intellects and characters that serve to weaken the white nationalist case. If the average white were as dishonest, abrasive and ignorant as the average white nationalist I would not see the white race as worth preserving at all.

    More to your comment here, Duke ignores the achievements of southern Europeans because they are more mixed with "nonwhite" genes and thus highlighting their accomplishments would make his beliefs more transparently fallacious.

  28. @Bao Jiankang
    somewhat off topic but ....
    The "the origin of significant figures" map seems to ignore Spanish accomplishment in art ( by "art" I assume they mean painting). Spain has produced some of the best art in Western Civilization, all the way through the 20th century. In my brief encounters with white nationalists I always found it strange how they love to boast about European Art (deservedly so) but never mention Velazquez or Picasso. I watched a David duke video where he went through various European countries and named their achievements. He spent a considerable amount of time talking about Ireland and the Baltics but never mentioned Spain or Italy. What a joke!

    Also, is "music" referring to European Art Music (baroque, classical, romantic)?

    somewhat off topic but ….
    The “the origin of significant figures” map seems to ignore Spanish accomplishment in art ( by “art” I assume they mean painting). Spain has produced some of the best art in Western Civilization, all the way through the 20th century. In my brief encounters with white nationalists I always found it strange how they love to boast about European Art (deservedly so) but never mention Velazquez or Picasso.

    I’ve had my disagreements with White nationalists.

    If you examine Charles Murray’s map, there are a few spots in Spain. I would recommend looking at his data if you are curious.

    Read More
  29. The anti-hBd people will always have an uphill battle–hBd’ers only have to prove/show that race-based genetic differences have some kind of significant social effect–whereas the anti-hBd side has to prove/show that genetic differences between ethnic groups have no social effects whatsoever (other than, for example, appearance drawing discrimination).

    Personally, I think the h-Bd crowd tends to over-emphasize purely genetic effects and minimize social effects, whether invidious (e.g. discrimination) or not (e.g. various historical effects). But this would seem to me only natural, given the rigidity of left-wing ideology, and its persistence accross the ideological spectrum in the West.

    Of course, there are other motivations for denying genetic diffences generally. A lot of neocon/religious right types deny genetics as a way of (artificially) maximizing personal responsibility. Religious right types tend to deny both genetic differnces and social effects, which is good if you want to put petty criminals in jail for life or let the mentally ill rot on the streets, but not so good for seeing reality clearly, or dealing with social problems realisitically.

    John Derbyshire addresses some of this stuff indirectly, in his Biologian/Culturist/Religionist division. I would put myself at something like 50-40-10 Biologian-Culturalist-Religionist.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    Well to be certain there are many factors. Genes matter, as does culture, as does history, as does free will. They all interplay in a manner that makes it very difficult to give the proper diagnosis and prescription to any given social problem. We all have agency but some of us have more agency due to genetic and cultural factors.
  30. Perhaps more importantly, religionism/pure personal responsibility makes for a good excuse for the rich and powerful to do whatever they damn well please.

    I’m not saying the rich and powerful are automatically bad, but I believe a significant percentage are, and such indivuduals/organizations have the power to do a lot of damage. Also, there’s the whole “power corrupts” issue; too much power can corrupt anybody.

    Denying both genetic and social effects can also lead to very bad policies, as I believe it has in the U.S. for dealing with mental illness and drug addiction. Due to high levels of religionism, the U.S. is the worst wealthy country I know of besides Singapore to be a drug addict or alcoholic, and the worst wealthy country to be mentally ill.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    Due to high levels of religionism, the U.S. is the worst wealthy country I know of besides Singapore to be a drug addict or alcoholic, and the worst wealthy country to be mentally ill.
     
    1. Religiosity is endogenous.
    2. Religiosity is not the cause of those things, but at best, a common symptom.
  31. @Matt W.
    Perhaps more importantly, religionism/pure personal responsibility makes for a good excuse for the rich and powerful to do whatever they damn well please.

    I'm not saying the rich and powerful are automatically bad, but I believe a significant percentage are, and such indivuduals/organizations have the power to do a lot of damage. Also, there's the whole "power corrupts" issue; too much power can corrupt anybody.

    Denying both genetic and social effects can also lead to very bad policies, as I believe it has in the U.S. for dealing with mental illness and drug addiction. Due to high levels of religionism, the U.S. is the worst wealthy country I know of besides Singapore to be a drug addict or alcoholic, and the worst wealthy country to be mentally ill.

    Due to high levels of religionism, the U.S. is the worst wealthy country I know of besides Singapore to be a drug addict or alcoholic, and the worst wealthy country to be mentally ill.

    1. Religiosity is endogenous.
    2. Religiosity is not the cause of those things, but at best, a common symptom.

    Read More
  32. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    So Chisala’s idea is that certain racial groups have greater levels of canalization, and that makes them more resistant to environmental stresses that might lower average IQ.

    Hmmm, so he does not understand that IQ is a result of the competing costs of high IQ and environmental forces pushing for higher IQ?

    If the environmental forces in the direction of higher IQ are not strong (as in much of SS Africa) the costs are going to win out and result in humans in that environment having just enough IQ to get the job done. Of course, there will also be a reasonable normal distribution about that mean.

    Read More
  33. @Sean

    First of all, Chisala is claiming that there are no “genetic” group differences in IQ. Rather, every group has the same average IQ potential, but each group has a different level of canalization, thanks to natural selection (and this is not even genetic canalization – as in resistance to mutations – as Cochran discussed, but resistance to purported environmental insults). This makes each more or less resistant to the purportedly IQ-depressing effects of deprived environment. So first it’s not genetic, but it is? Which is it, man?
     
    Cochran has an original theory about African marriage practices leading to older fathers and their mutations being responsible for low IQ in Africans. Chisala has reversed Cochran's theory, and added a bit about canalisation .

    I believe CH Waddington's idea on this (that I brought it up repeatedly over the last 8 years on Evo and Proud and GNXP before Cochran's post ) is that under stress the canalised variants can much more easily get expressed. When under stress the hidden genetic variability can become exposed to the full force of natural selection.

    Some weird genetic potentialities are lurking in most people, although one would never know they were there in normal circumstances because they get buffered out rather than coming through to expression The moonshine swilling hillbilly with rotting teeth pumping poisons into his body is going to to be much more likely to have such unusual potentialities come through to expression in his phenotype. If the novel phenotype is advantageous for the particular environment it can spread.


    http://www.unz.com/pfrost/a-hair-color-allele-of-neanderthal/
    Whereas Europeans have eleven MC1Ralleles, Asians have only five, and all five produce the same black hair color (Harding et al., 2000). In short, Asians have fewer alleles and proportionately fewer of these differ phenotypically from the ancestral African allele. It looks as if something downstream prevents these alleles from affecting hair color.
     

    The moonshine swilling hillbilly with rotting teeth

    Stop it!

    Besides, with Obamacare we can get out teeth fixed and those reprobate tax paying publicans have to pay for it.

    Read More
  34. Because sub-Saharan Africa has remarkably few ruins for its immense size.

    Yup. As I remarked here, for the Met Museum of Art’s exhibit “Kongo,” they had to pad it out with wall-size landscape photographs and early European books by travelers to Africa.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jm8
    The art of Kongo contains some things of quite high artistic merit, especially the earliest surviving objects; raffia textiles and hunting trumpets made of ivory (14-1700’s). The number of oldest surviving objects is not that great however(compared to more recent ones). The more recent wood carvings and ivory (19th0-20th century) are not bad either.

    http://www.metmuseum.org/exhibitions/listings/2015/kongo/blog/posts/patterns-without-end

    The quality of their textiles was commented on the by the first European visitors starting in the late 1400’s “”
    “Their making was described with admiration by Antonio Zuchelli (1663–1716), an Italian missionary to the Kongo. He notes how the local weavers finished their cloth "with a knife they cut the cloth in the proper spots and rub it well with their hands, so that it looks like patterned velvet." Europeans compared what they saw to luxurious Italian silk velvets with elaborate woven patterns, but they admired pieces that were "so beautiful," in the words of the Portuguese sea captain Duarte Pacheco Pereira (ca. 1460–1533), "that those made in Italy do not surpass them in workmanship." What really surprised them was the way in which Kongo cloths were woven not from silk but from raffia, which made them miraculously soft to the touch.”

    The peoples of the congo region were not likely to leave many ruins since their houses were made of bamboo and looked something like this:

    https://www.google.com/search?q=kongo+kingdom+house&biw=906&bih=732&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj1_MSPyebKAhUJOj4KHaeoDywQ_AUIBigB - tbm=isch&q=kongo+Luumbu+(or+the+royal+enclosure)%2C&imgrc=9i4cGKtpkUbRGM%3A
  35. @Sean

    First of all, Chisala is claiming that there are no “genetic” group differences in IQ. Rather, every group has the same average IQ potential, but each group has a different level of canalization, thanks to natural selection (and this is not even genetic canalization – as in resistance to mutations – as Cochran discussed, but resistance to purported environmental insults). This makes each more or less resistant to the purportedly IQ-depressing effects of deprived environment. So first it’s not genetic, but it is? Which is it, man?
     
    Cochran has an original theory about African marriage practices leading to older fathers and their mutations being responsible for low IQ in Africans. Chisala has reversed Cochran's theory, and added a bit about canalisation .

    I believe CH Waddington's idea on this (that I brought it up repeatedly over the last 8 years on Evo and Proud and GNXP before Cochran's post ) is that under stress the canalised variants can much more easily get expressed. When under stress the hidden genetic variability can become exposed to the full force of natural selection.

    Some weird genetic potentialities are lurking in most people, although one would never know they were there in normal circumstances because they get buffered out rather than coming through to expression The moonshine swilling hillbilly with rotting teeth pumping poisons into his body is going to to be much more likely to have such unusual potentialities come through to expression in his phenotype. If the novel phenotype is advantageous for the particular environment it can spread.


    http://www.unz.com/pfrost/a-hair-color-allele-of-neanderthal/
    Whereas Europeans have eleven MC1Ralleles, Asians have only five, and all five produce the same black hair color (Harding et al., 2000). In short, Asians have fewer alleles and proportionately fewer of these differ phenotypically from the ancestral African allele. It looks as if something downstream prevents these alleles from affecting hair color.
     

    I (sub)develop a otherwise theory where the marriage patterns among africans, very young couples marrying, tend to produce intergenerational accumulative juvenile behavior (lower ”iq”) while among northern europeans, specially, where people tend to marry with older ages since a long time tend to produce relative mature behavior (”average” ”iq”). Well, just a thiory.

    Read More
  36. JayMan writes:

    And finally, there is the fundamental problem that Chisala doesn’t understand either evolution or the formula that guides it, the breeder’ s equation. There is no reason to suspect that human groups that have been separated for tens of thousands of years in vastly different environments would be the same in all their cognitive and behavioral qualities. In fact, a priori we should expect them not to be, since such equivalence after so many generations of separate evolution is nigh impossible.

    No one would expect IQ or any other trait to be precisely equal for two populations to the nth decimal place. The question is whether the difference in their “natural” IQs are enough to be socially meaningful. A 10 point difference is meaningful; a 0.1 point difference is not.

    How could such an abstract principle as natural selection answer such a biologically and socially specific, quantitative question a priori? Where’s all the math? (And no, the breeder’s equation doesn’t count.)

    If you’ve got a specific, concrete, quantitative argument to back up a claim of a nonnegligible difference, great. But the abstract principle you cited in support seems irrelevant.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    I think a basic understanding of biology would lead one to think that, a priori, populations separated for thousands of generations in widely different environments would develop significant genetic differences in cognition and behavior between the popultions. Real world experience would appear to corroborate this to a great extent. If anything I think the differences between races are greater than a dry mathematical model would probably predict.
    , @JayMan

    No one would expect IQ or any other trait to be precisely equal for two populations to the nth decimal place. The question is whether the difference in their “natural” IQs are enough to be socially meaningful. A 10 point difference is meaningful; a 0.1 point difference is not.
     
    That too follows from the breeder's equation. Use it and see.
  37. This fixation on IQ by hbd also makes them neglect the anatomical differences between human populations that appear to be relatively significant and decisive to produce the (average) differences in behavior.

    Does the European whites, on average, have the brain areas responsible for abstractions and morality, more developed **

    So far I have not seen a plausible explanation for the (average) ” normal ” verbal iq of East Asians, and their low representation where usually this attribute is required.

    Or how the non-verbal skills of them may be working to override their verbal skills.

    Finally, there are many areas to explore, and this fixation on cognitive tests, seems to be becoming increasingly counterproductive.

    Not having evolution in the understanding of human intelligence, especially from an intimate and comprehensive perspective because many researchers in the field have to start by partly erroneous conclusions and for not being exponentially comprehensive, will move to become even more confusing. When the base is not completely solid.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    Finally, there are many areas to explore, and this fixation on cognitive tests, seems to be becoming increasingly counterproductive.
     
    As HBD Chick puts it, there is more to HBD than IQ. That said, IQ is still hugely important.
  38. @Aaron Gross
    JayMan writes:

    And finally, there is the fundamental problem that Chisala doesn’t understand either evolution or the formula that guides it, the breeder’ s equation. There is no reason to suspect that human groups that have been separated for tens of thousands of years in vastly different environments would be the same in all their cognitive and behavioral qualities. In fact, a priori we should expect them not to be, since such equivalence after so many generations of separate evolution is nigh impossible.
     
    No one would expect IQ or any other trait to be precisely equal for two populations to the nth decimal place. The question is whether the difference in their "natural" IQs are enough to be socially meaningful. A 10 point difference is meaningful; a 0.1 point difference is not.

    How could such an abstract principle as natural selection answer such a biologically and socially specific, quantitative question a priori? Where's all the math? (And no, the breeder's equation doesn't count.)

    If you've got a specific, concrete, quantitative argument to back up a claim of a nonnegligible difference, great. But the abstract principle you cited in support seems irrelevant.

    I think a basic understanding of biology would lead one to think that, a priori, populations separated for thousands of generations in widely different environments would develop significant genetic differences in cognition and behavior between the popultions. Real world experience would appear to corroborate this to a great extent. If anything I think the differences between races are greater than a dry mathematical model would probably predict.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Aaron Gross

    I think a basic understanding of biology would lead one to think that, a priori, populations separated for thousands of generations in widely different environments would develop significant genetic differences in cognition and behavior between the populations.
     
    "Significant." So Natural Selection is prescient enough to know what will be socially significant in Western societies in 2016? Then why don't you explain how a "basic understanding of biology" would lead to this. Explain it, quantitatively, don't just assert it.

    Remember, none of the "hereditarian" intelligence researchers were smart enough to see the implication that was so obvious to JayMan and you. They were stupid enough to believe that such a result was contingent and could only be determined empirically, which is why they devoted their time to quantitative studies, rather than just citing a blog post by JayMan.

    Look, it's idiocy like this stuff that JayMan wrote that helps give HBD a bad name, among those who are open to the questions it addresses.
  39. @Matt W.
    The anti-hBd people will always have an uphill battle--hBd'ers only have to prove/show that race-based genetic differences have some kind of significant social effect--whereas the anti-hBd side has to prove/show that genetic differences between ethnic groups have no social effects whatsoever (other than, for example, appearance drawing discrimination).

    Personally, I think the h-Bd crowd tends to over-emphasize purely genetic effects and minimize social effects, whether invidious (e.g. discrimination) or not (e.g. various historical effects). But this would seem to me only natural, given the rigidity of left-wing ideology, and its persistence accross the ideological spectrum in the West.

    Of course, there are other motivations for denying genetic diffences generally. A lot of neocon/religious right types deny genetics as a way of (artificially) maximizing personal responsibility. Religious right types tend to deny both genetic differnces and social effects, which is good if you want to put petty criminals in jail for life or let the mentally ill rot on the streets, but not so good for seeing reality clearly, or dealing with social problems realisitically.

    John Derbyshire addresses some of this stuff indirectly, in his Biologian/Culturist/Religionist division. I would put myself at something like 50-40-10 Biologian-Culturalist-Religionist.

    Well to be certain there are many factors. Genes matter, as does culture, as does history, as does free will. They all interplay in a manner that makes it very difficult to give the proper diagnosis and prescription to any given social problem. We all have agency but some of us have more agency due to genetic and cultural factors.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    Genes matter, as does culture, as does history, as does free will.
     
    Yes, not really, and no.
  40. @Bao Jiankang
    somewhat off topic but ....
    The "the origin of significant figures" map seems to ignore Spanish accomplishment in art ( by "art" I assume they mean painting). Spain has produced some of the best art in Western Civilization, all the way through the 20th century. In my brief encounters with white nationalists I always found it strange how they love to boast about European Art (deservedly so) but never mention Velazquez or Picasso. I watched a David duke video where he went through various European countries and named their achievements. He spent a considerable amount of time talking about Ireland and the Baltics but never mentioned Spain or Italy. What a joke!

    Also, is "music" referring to European Art Music (baroque, classical, romantic)?

    While my political beliefs are primarily “white nationalist” in nature, I’ve found, to my great dismay, that white nationalists tend to possess personalities, intellects and characters that serve to weaken the white nationalist case. If the average white were as dishonest, abrasive and ignorant as the average white nationalist I would not see the white race as worth preserving at all.

    More to your comment here, Duke ignores the achievements of southern Europeans because they are more mixed with “nonwhite” genes and thus highlighting their accomplishments would make his beliefs more transparently fallacious.

    Read More
  41. @Aaron Gross
    JayMan writes:

    And finally, there is the fundamental problem that Chisala doesn’t understand either evolution or the formula that guides it, the breeder’ s equation. There is no reason to suspect that human groups that have been separated for tens of thousands of years in vastly different environments would be the same in all their cognitive and behavioral qualities. In fact, a priori we should expect them not to be, since such equivalence after so many generations of separate evolution is nigh impossible.
     
    No one would expect IQ or any other trait to be precisely equal for two populations to the nth decimal place. The question is whether the difference in their "natural" IQs are enough to be socially meaningful. A 10 point difference is meaningful; a 0.1 point difference is not.

    How could such an abstract principle as natural selection answer such a biologically and socially specific, quantitative question a priori? Where's all the math? (And no, the breeder's equation doesn't count.)

    If you've got a specific, concrete, quantitative argument to back up a claim of a nonnegligible difference, great. But the abstract principle you cited in support seems irrelevant.

    No one would expect IQ or any other trait to be precisely equal for two populations to the nth decimal place. The question is whether the difference in their “natural” IQs are enough to be socially meaningful. A 10 point difference is meaningful; a 0.1 point difference is not.

    That too follows from the breeder’s equation. Use it and see.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Aaron Gross
    Are you kidding? How could the breeder's equation show that in our society today a 10-point difference is socially meaningful whereas a 0.1 point difference is not?
    , @Aaron Gross
    Still waiting to see your math.
    , @Aaron Gross
    That's nonsense. You yourself just agreed that it's not necessarily the case! That is, that the environments might select for roughly equal average intelligence.
  42. @Santoculto
    This fixation on IQ by hbd also makes them neglect the anatomical differences between human populations that appear to be relatively significant and decisive to produce the (average) differences in behavior.

    Does the European whites, on average, have the brain areas responsible for abstractions and morality, more developed **

    So far I have not seen a plausible explanation for the (average) '' normal '' verbal iq of East Asians, and their low representation where usually this attribute is required.

    Or how the non-verbal skills of them may be working to override their verbal skills.

    Finally, there are many areas to explore, and this fixation on cognitive tests, seems to be becoming increasingly counterproductive.

    Not having evolution in the understanding of human intelligence, especially from an intimate and comprehensive perspective because many researchers in the field have to start by partly erroneous conclusions and for not being exponentially comprehensive, will move to become even more confusing. When the base is not completely solid.

    Finally, there are many areas to explore, and this fixation on cognitive tests, seems to be becoming increasingly counterproductive.

    As HBD Chick puts it, there is more to HBD than IQ. That said, IQ is still hugely important.

    Read More
  43. @AndrewR
    Well to be certain there are many factors. Genes matter, as does culture, as does history, as does free will. They all interplay in a manner that makes it very difficult to give the proper diagnosis and prescription to any given social problem. We all have agency but some of us have more agency due to genetic and cultural factors.

    Genes matter, as does culture, as does history, as does free will.

    Yes, not really, and no.

    Read More
  44. @JayMan

    Genes matter, as does culture, as does history, as does free will.
     
    Yes, not really, and no.

    Gee, you’ve sure convinced me

    Read More
  45. @AndrewR
    Gee, you've sure convinced me

    OK, how about:

    1. Where does culture come from?
    2. No, You Don’t Have Free Will, and This Is Why

    Read More
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    1. Culture comes partly from genes but most of it comes from circumstances.

    2. tl;dr
    , @iffen
    Yes we do have free will!

    Sorry jayman. I fought and struggled with Bizarro iffen to not make this comment. I lost. I'm not sure why. I really do want to stop saying we have free will every time you and hbd chick say otherwise. I just can't stop, it's, it's, it's something I can't seem to control.
    , @szopen
    Jayman,
    I have already discussed with you on that topic. I even had the vague impression that you half- (or maybe quarter-) way agreed with me.

    The answer for the (1) is: "sometimes culture comes with invaders, who implement it against the wishes of the nation, install its institution, brainwash the population and kill the opposition". In that case it's hard to argue that culture was result of the genetic predisposition of the local population, and - that over course of the next few generation - this implemented culture won't affect the population.
    , @Brian
    Jayman, I hope I've done a decent due diligence, but I cannot find anything in your texts on free will about David Deutsch's view about how the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Physics rescues free will (sort of). Especially in ch 11 & 13 of his The Fabric of Reality. A much better condensation of the argument than I could manage is at https://stephenwhitt.wordpress.com/2011/12/17/the-fabric-of-reality-and-free-will/ , but it glosses over a great deal that TFoR treats in detail.

    Your statement that emergent properties "are fully dependent on the properties of those sub-units" is one that I would agree with except perhaps with "fully." I agree with all due reductiveness, but this seems to me to imply more than that, that emergent properties are less fundamental than more reduced ones. Again, I think you would be interested in what Deutsch has to say about that in ch 1 of TFoR.

    My apologies for pointing to chapters instead of presenting the arguments. I never do that, *except regarding Deutsch*. If you have read TFofR, you'll understand. If not...

  46. I’m not sure the brain size and race data proves much by itself. There’s the obvious explanation of latitude affecting brain size irrespective of it’s affect on intelligence. The North American Indians(outside the South) and Inuit have brain sizes comparable to larger than White people, yet they have mediocre IQs.

    Perhaps white people in Europe had more challenges and stimulation to their brains and had a culture that encouraged advancement. The northern Indians you speak of did things the same way generation after generation. They had it down pat on what it took to live and survive the winter and this was enough. They were tied to the earth with many traditions that acted as a straight jacket. So their large brains never formed the connections within them that would lead to higher IQ.

    Read More
  47. @JayMan

    Finally, there are many areas to explore, and this fixation on cognitive tests, seems to be becoming increasingly counterproductive.
     
    As HBD Chick puts it, there is more to HBD than IQ. That said, IQ is still hugely important.

    Too much hugely for you guys.

    Read More
  48. @JayMan
    OK, how about:

    1. Where does culture come from?
    2. No, You Don't Have Free Will, and This Is Why

    1. Culture comes partly from genes but most of it comes from circumstances.

    2. tl;dr

    Read More
  49. Chandra Chisala is a bullshit artist whom I am almost certain doesn’t believe the things he says. He is a pretty good one, but I have heard better. He rates a 6 on the Trump scale of bullshit artistry. I am glad to hear that he is probably reading Cochran, I am sure it pisses him off. Chandra is a bright black man who thinks he can bullshit his way to protect the wonderfully noble sentiment that we are all born equal. Tis a lovely sentiment but it’s nonsense on every level spanning psychometric testing to everyday experience and all points in between.

    We will always have 99 salesmen blathering nonsense for one scientific explainer focusing in on a much smaller audience. This still surprises and disappoints people, as I suppose it should, but we cannot change the masses out there from buying the bullshit some clown is spilling in everything from a presidential debate to a column in Unz review. The diversity in human intelligence makes such manipulations inevitable.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Deep breathe. Have a couple glasses of merlot.
  50. @JayMan
    OK, how about:

    1. Where does culture come from?
    2. No, You Don't Have Free Will, and This Is Why

    Yes we do have free will!

    Sorry jayman. I fought and struggled with Bizarro iffen to not make this comment. I lost. I’m not sure why. I really do want to stop saying we have free will every time you and hbd chick say otherwise. I just can’t stop, it’s, it’s, it’s something I can’t seem to control.

    Read More
    • Replies: @szopen
    There is misunderstanding here. We have no free will in a purely philosphical sense. However, except sophisticated philosophers and thinkers no one actually use this purely philosophical sense.
    "I" is my brain. There is no "i" besides my brain. What i will do is dictated by the structure of my brain. Therefore, I have no free will because what I will do is dictated by me.
  51. @Dave Chamberlin
    Chandra Chisala is a bullshit artist whom I am almost certain doesn't believe the things he says. He is a pretty good one, but I have heard better. He rates a 6 on the Trump scale of bullshit artistry. I am glad to hear that he is probably reading Cochran, I am sure it pisses him off. Chandra is a bright black man who thinks he can bullshit his way to protect the wonderfully noble sentiment that we are all born equal. Tis a lovely sentiment but it's nonsense on every level spanning psychometric testing to everyday experience and all points in between.

    We will always have 99 salesmen blathering nonsense for one scientific explainer focusing in on a much smaller audience. This still surprises and disappoints people, as I suppose it should, but we cannot change the masses out there from buying the bullshit some clown is spilling in everything from a presidential debate to a column in Unz review. The diversity in human intelligence makes such manipulations inevitable.

    Deep breathe. Have a couple glasses of merlot.

    Read More
  52. @Chrisnonymous

    Because sub-Saharan Africa has remarkably few ruins for its immense size.
     
    Yup. As I remarked here, for the Met Museum of Art's exhibit "Kongo," they had to pad it out with wall-size landscape photographs and early European books by travelers to Africa.

    The art of Kongo contains some things of quite high artistic merit, especially the earliest surviving objects; raffia textiles and hunting trumpets made of ivory (14-1700’s). The number of oldest surviving objects is not that great however(compared to more recent ones). The more recent wood carvings and ivory (19th0-20th century) are not bad either.

    http://www.metmuseum.org/exhibitions/listings/2015/kongo/blog/posts/patterns-without-end

    The quality of their textiles was commented on the by the first European visitors starting in the late 1400’s “”
    “Their making was described with admiration by Antonio Zuchelli (1663–1716), an Italian missionary to the Kongo. He notes how the local weavers finished their cloth “with a knife they cut the cloth in the proper spots and rub it well with their hands, so that it looks like patterned velvet.” Europeans compared what they saw to luxurious Italian silk velvets with elaborate woven patterns, but they admired pieces that were “so beautiful,” in the words of the Portuguese sea captain Duarte Pacheco Pereira (ca. 1460–1533), “that those made in Italy do not surpass them in workmanship.” What really surprised them was the way in which Kongo cloths were woven not from silk but from raffia, which made them miraculously soft to the touch.”

    The peoples of the congo region were not likely to leave many ruins since their houses were made of bamboo and looked something like this:

    https://www.google.com/search?q=kongo+kingdom+house&biw=906&bih=732&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj1_MSPyebKAhUJOj4KHaeoDywQ_AUIBigB – tbm=isch&q=kongo+Luumbu+(or+the+royal+enclosure)%2C&imgrc=9i4cGKtpkUbRGM%3A

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jm8
    corrected last link(hopefully); image to the right


    https://www.google.com/search?q=kongo+kingdom+house&biw=906&bih=732&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj1_MSPyebKAhUJOj4KHaeoDywQ_AUIBigB#tbm=isch&q=kongo+kingdom+luumbu
  53. @Jm8
    The art of Kongo contains some things of quite high artistic merit, especially the earliest surviving objects; raffia textiles and hunting trumpets made of ivory (14-1700’s). The number of oldest surviving objects is not that great however(compared to more recent ones). The more recent wood carvings and ivory (19th0-20th century) are not bad either.

    http://www.metmuseum.org/exhibitions/listings/2015/kongo/blog/posts/patterns-without-end

    The quality of their textiles was commented on the by the first European visitors starting in the late 1400’s “”
    “Their making was described with admiration by Antonio Zuchelli (1663–1716), an Italian missionary to the Kongo. He notes how the local weavers finished their cloth "with a knife they cut the cloth in the proper spots and rub it well with their hands, so that it looks like patterned velvet." Europeans compared what they saw to luxurious Italian silk velvets with elaborate woven patterns, but they admired pieces that were "so beautiful," in the words of the Portuguese sea captain Duarte Pacheco Pereira (ca. 1460–1533), "that those made in Italy do not surpass them in workmanship." What really surprised them was the way in which Kongo cloths were woven not from silk but from raffia, which made them miraculously soft to the touch.”

    The peoples of the congo region were not likely to leave many ruins since their houses were made of bamboo and looked something like this:

    https://www.google.com/search?q=kongo+kingdom+house&biw=906&bih=732&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj1_MSPyebKAhUJOj4KHaeoDywQ_AUIBigB - tbm=isch&q=kongo+Luumbu+(or+the+royal+enclosure)%2C&imgrc=9i4cGKtpkUbRGM%3A
    Read More
  54. Priss Factor [AKA "Dominique Francon Society"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment

    In the end, the problem is that Nature doesn’t obey Political Correctness.

    ‘Progressivism’ promised us that the removal of social discrimination would lead to racial equality for all since ‘race is just a myth’.

    But what happened is that Nature, no longer hampered by social taboos-laws-and-norms, got to pick the winners and losers.

    Nature paid no heed to PC.

    In a way, SJW shrillness and hysteria reflect their desperate efforts to repress the obvious that they are not capable of processing.

    SJW, especially the males, have been led to believe that race is just a myth and that all races are the same. They’ve been made to believe that equality is attainable IF white males atone enough and give back enough. PC has brainwashed them from the cradle to believe this is true and must be true, and if you disagree, you are a terrible ‘racist’, OMG!!! And SJW want to believe this.

    But they see the reality in the post-civil-rights world, and things are not playing out as was promised.
    Racial differences permeate into every facet of life. In sports, sex, academia, music, science, law, and etc. And these differences are the products of nature than society.

    But SJW have been so brainwashed that they cannot make themselves to believe this. SJW complex isn’t so much a matter of having wrong facts or theories. Facts and theories are about research and reason, and they can be proved or disproved.
    If SJW only rationally and dryly believed in what they did, their minds could be changed by better facts and ideas.
    The problem is that SJW have been in-spiritualized with holy passion for MLK, Harriet Tubman, Noble Negro imagery, Holocaust imagery, and etc. SJW also grew up worshiping the Negro as sports hero and music star.

    So, it is difficult for the SJW to abandon their views. It would not only be a matter of changing ideas or views but akin to abandoning faith in God or even killing god. They have a quasi-religious attachment and faith in ‘progress’ that has become associated with holy Negroes and the sanctimony of ‘white guilt’.

    This is why anti-SJW movement must be iconoclastic than merely rationalist or empirical. Asking SJW to abandon their views is akin to telling Christians to stop believing in God or Jesus. It’s a matter of Idol-ogy as well as ideology. It’s like the power of Christianity isn’t just about the creed but about the myth of holy Jesus as Son of God. Remove the Christ narrative, and Christianity-as-ideology would be just another school of philosophy for people to accept or reject. It is because of the holy Jesus narrative that Christianity went from an idea for the mind to an icon for the heart. As such, it became blasphemous for anyone to deny its eternal truth.

    If we take MLK’s message, it was the same old same old stuff that’s been said many times before by the likes of Gandhi and others. MLK holds a special place because he’s been turned into a holy icon.

    One cannot discuss anything with SJW because their mind-set is essentially ‘religious’. They hold some things to be not only true but holy. Indeed, the truth is inseparable from the holiness as far as SJW are concerned. They’ve been made to revere certain icons so much that the latter’s espousal of certain ideas renders the ideas true. This isn’t rational, but it is how the SJW mindset works. Since MLK myth is holy, the things he said must be holy.. and true. And anyone who says otherwise is a heretic.

    I wonder if Anglos achieved so much more than other people because they found a means to turn off the emotions and sanctimony. Muted emotions allowed more freedom of discourse since even controversial or unorthodox view could be voiced with reason, pondered, and then accepted or rejected on the basis of factual or rational merit. In contrast, more emotional cultures often tended to shut people down or carry them away.
    PC has made the new UK less controlled and temperate.

    Read More
  55. For someone who begins your post about how Chisala has been “producing pile after pile of nonsense for quite some time”, with you “refuting his rubbish”, because “he was full of baloney”, and were mostly banned “for your signature flair. :D”*, is a “bullshit artist etc.” you’re not entirely on solid ground with a good part of your post.

    To wit, you quote that 2007 paper that’s waved around as how timeless racial differences are, and affirm that with Steve Sailer on African history. Sailer acts like urbanization was marginal in SS africa, and this was because of things like large game preventing humans from settling down (such as the continent-wide threat of elephants eating food crops) and the threat of disease.

    It’s too bad Sailer has a sophomore understanding of african history, but that’s remarkably common among HBDers. Sailer from the outset is wrong to claim urbanization was uncommon in SS africa, that they “largely remained small villagers scratching a living from the ground” or “there simply weren’t many cities south of Timbuktu.” Starting with this (ignore the goofy title), it’s clear urbanization has long existed in West African, even before Islam, and many of the earliest urban centers have basically been buried/fallen apart: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9LkpJdll9A

    Then there’s the muslim successors of these early urban centers, such as Ghana/Mali/Songhai, and while it’s common to wave them off as being the products of arabs/berbers, the few racially mixed groups that exist in inland west africa have long been nomadic, and some, like the Tuareg, are few in number even now.

    Then there are the cities that existed in coastal west africa (which was overwhelmingly untouched by Islam), particularly the ones in southern Nigeria, which produced advanced art to boot: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ife

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benin_Bronzes

    This isn’t even going into the millions and millions of people who were transported and died in the atlantic slave trade- where would those people have come from if there weren’t heavy urban centers? Most african slaves came from southwest africa, particularly Angola, which also had it’s share of cities and advanced cultures, that also took readily to European influence:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Kongo

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade#Slave_market_regions_and_participation

    Sailer however isn’t entirely incorrect to note the absence of large ruins in SS africa, or how large parts of SS africa never had extensive urbanization or highly developed cultures. I can think of a variety of general reasons for this (though not discounting genes):

    -Most modern SS africans derive from a population centered in the sahara about 10,000 years ago. Before then, SS africa was very sparsely populated, and by african groups physically distinct from typical black africans. Around this time, these africans developed agriculture, in varying degrees indigenously and from the outside (and eventually, iron smelting, though this seems to be completely indigenous). They gradually spread southwards, remained predominantly in West Africa, and did not expand outward until the bantu expansion, which began 4,000 years ago, and was technically still occurring into modern times, what with conflicts between the Dutch and the natives in South Africa. Huge swaths of africa remained filled with scattered, stone age hunter-gatherers, and were in historic times populated quite recently by bantu groups, which brought with them agriculture and iron smelting. The fact so much of africa prior to colonialism remained so undeveloped is in large part due to how recent the arrivals were. In west africa, where human habitation was more advanced culture is much older, we see the most developed cultures, ruins etc. And even then, large parts of west africa were very sparsely inhabited until modern times, such as Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone.

    -While urbanization is old and has been extensive in west africa, perhaps the main reason monumental ruins, architecture etc. have minimal is because west africa is largely flatland with few major stone deposits. Most buildings in west africa, whether in the sahel or coastal nigeria, have been made of mud, often mud bulk. Where stone deposits have been more extensive, they’ve been widely used, like in the Dogon region of Mali. But monumental architecture hasn’t been absent- muslim explorers and such often noted large palaces and structures in medieval west africa, and european explorers long noted Benin City and it’s palace. Their predominant modern absence seems to be due to the fact many of them were destroyed or fell into disrepair. After the Songhai empire was conquered by the Saadi dynasty, the Moroccans razed many major cities, and relinquished control of the region, which caused it to splinter into many smaller kingdoms, and began a centuries long period of decline that led to the region becoming a backwater. Europeans also destroyed cities like Benin and pre-colonial Kumasi (which also had fairly impressive architecture, of which there are many photos to attest.)

    Anyway, you follow up with this gem:

    “By contrast, as we know, there was plenty of development in East Asia and Europe, especially Northwestern Europe:”

    Well, if you were talking about northwestern europe awhile after roman influence, then sure. Because there were next to no cities before that time, and while there were some pretty remarkable astronomical achievements, they weren’t typical, and they by the standards of most the world back then didn’t have plenty of development, and wouldn’t begin to really shine until some centuries later. That’s what your map shows, but isn’t it a bit dishonest to act like this map is worth reference for a paper that talks about technological development as far back as 1,000 BC? Japan also didn’t begin urbanization until around a similar time, and definitely far later than China and Korea.

    But yeah, they sure line up with their prosperity millenia later, don’t they?

    “As Staffan put it, “we can’t adjust for their entire history.””

    This led me to a comment from someone who claims Russians created communism. But Chisala is the bullshit artist?

    Now, I’m not saying any of the examples of african history prove parity with eurasians, or exempt genetics, or that the behavioral demands in those pre-modern settings are the same as now (but that could apply to anywhere), but it would help to not regurgitate Sailer’s goofy theories on Africa and affirm that HBDers have next to no idea about africa’s history.

    *Is the “mostly” an admission you can be annoying?

    Read More
    • Replies: @This Is Our Home
    Sorry you have it wrong. African nationalists have confused you with their habit for cultural appropriation. For example, the Empire of Ghana was located in modern day Morocco.

    You can see a map which shows pretty much every organised African society here, and what meets the standard of 'organised' would not qualify were it found in Europe.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_empires

    You do make a good point about much of Africa being newly populated by Bantu peoples. Then again the fact that it took Europeans less time to colonise North and South America than it took the Bantu to colonise South Africa needs explanation...indeed it took Euros less time to get to South Africa than it took Bantus, which is crazy.

    I suspect that there are myriad explanations for all of this but you laugh at Sailer at your peril.
  56. @iffen
    The moonshine swilling hillbilly with rotting teeth

    Stop it!

    Besides, with Obamacare we can get out teeth fixed and those reprobate tax paying publicans have to pay for it.

    But you can’t get them capped! Watch those roots.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Implants! Bernie is going to get us full coverage.
  57. @JayMan

    No one would expect IQ or any other trait to be precisely equal for two populations to the nth decimal place. The question is whether the difference in their “natural” IQs are enough to be socially meaningful. A 10 point difference is meaningful; a 0.1 point difference is not.
     
    That too follows from the breeder's equation. Use it and see.

    Are you kidding? How could the breeder’s equation show that in our society today a 10-point difference is socially meaningful whereas a 0.1 point difference is not?

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    Are you kidding? How could the breeder’s equation show that in our society today a 10-point difference is socially meaningful whereas a 0.1 point difference is not?
     
    I think you're going off the rails there. Let's bring the topic back to what we're talking about.
  58. @AndrewR
    I think a basic understanding of biology would lead one to think that, a priori, populations separated for thousands of generations in widely different environments would develop significant genetic differences in cognition and behavior between the popultions. Real world experience would appear to corroborate this to a great extent. If anything I think the differences between races are greater than a dry mathematical model would probably predict.

    I think a basic understanding of biology would lead one to think that, a priori, populations separated for thousands of generations in widely different environments would develop significant genetic differences in cognition and behavior between the populations.

    “Significant.” So Natural Selection is prescient enough to know what will be socially significant in Western societies in 2016? Then why don’t you explain how a “basic understanding of biology” would lead to this. Explain it, quantitatively, don’t just assert it.

    Remember, none of the “hereditarian” intelligence researchers were smart enough to see the implication that was so obvious to JayMan and you. They were stupid enough to believe that such a result was contingent and could only be determined empirically, which is why they devoted their time to quantitative studies, rather than just citing a blog post by JayMan.

    Look, it’s idiocy like this stuff that JayMan wrote that helps give HBD a bad name, among those who are open to the questions it addresses.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    As noted here, even if we assume, à la S.J. Gould, that the genetic character of humanity has not changed in the last 60k years or so due to selection, we would still expect to see substantial genetic differences between the major races on traits with substantial additive heritability, including behavioral traits. This is because genetic drift will push populations apart unless there are selective forces that push them together. For there to not exist substantial genetic differences in behavioral characteristics between races, there must have been more or less constant uniform or stabilizing selection across thousands of generations in all populations on all behavioral traits. That's not very likely. These expected differences, given known FST differences between races and typical heritability values, are of a magnitude that, when they occur between major demographic groups, are nowadays treated as major social problems. On top of this, of course, it is likely that there are many traits where selection has caused more divergence between groups that what is expected by drift alone; some of these traits are known as they have a simple genetic architecture (e.g., skin color, various disease resistance genes).
    , @JayMan

    “Significant.” So Natural Selection is prescient enough to know what will be socially significant in Western societies in 2016? Then why don’t you explain how a “basic understanding of biology” would lead to this. Explain it, quantitatively, don’t just assert it.
     
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puFJ_hBTplc

    Cartman, what the hell are you talking about?


    Explain it, quantitatively, don’t just assert it.
     
    For completeness sake, the point is that even modest selective pressures can lead to substantial change quantitative traits if sustained over long periods of time – as long as these traits are in any way heritable (and all traits are). The breeder's equation quantifies how fast we can expect such change to take place – that, far shorter than the time human races have been separated. Major cognitive and behavioral differences are a given.

    I'm getting tired of this argument. I sure hope this clears it up for you.

  59. @JayMan

    No one would expect IQ or any other trait to be precisely equal for two populations to the nth decimal place. The question is whether the difference in their “natural” IQs are enough to be socially meaningful. A 10 point difference is meaningful; a 0.1 point difference is not.
     
    That too follows from the breeder's equation. Use it and see.

    Still waiting to see your math.

    Read More
  60. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Aaron Gross

    I think a basic understanding of biology would lead one to think that, a priori, populations separated for thousands of generations in widely different environments would develop significant genetic differences in cognition and behavior between the populations.
     
    "Significant." So Natural Selection is prescient enough to know what will be socially significant in Western societies in 2016? Then why don't you explain how a "basic understanding of biology" would lead to this. Explain it, quantitatively, don't just assert it.

    Remember, none of the "hereditarian" intelligence researchers were smart enough to see the implication that was so obvious to JayMan and you. They were stupid enough to believe that such a result was contingent and could only be determined empirically, which is why they devoted their time to quantitative studies, rather than just citing a blog post by JayMan.

    Look, it's idiocy like this stuff that JayMan wrote that helps give HBD a bad name, among those who are open to the questions it addresses.

    As noted here, even if we assume, à la S.J. Gould, that the genetic character of humanity has not changed in the last 60k years or so due to selection, we would still expect to see substantial genetic differences between the major races on traits with substantial additive heritability, including behavioral traits. This is because genetic drift will push populations apart unless there are selective forces that push them together. For there to not exist substantial genetic differences in behavioral characteristics between races, there must have been more or less constant uniform or stabilizing selection across thousands of generations in all populations on all behavioral traits. That’s not very likely. These expected differences, given known FST differences between races and typical heritability values, are of a magnitude that, when they occur between major demographic groups, are nowadays treated as major social problems. On top of this, of course, it is likely that there are many traits where selection has caused more divergence between groups that what is expected by drift alone; some of these traits are known as they have a simple genetic architecture (e.g., skin color, various disease resistance genes).

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    we would still expect to see substantial genetic differences between the major races on traits with substantial additive heritability, including behavioral traits. This is because genetic drift will push populations apart unless there are selective forces that push them together.
     
    Precisely!
    , @Aaron Gross
    First of all, thanks for actually addressing the topic.

    I don't see how you can say that such selection is "not very likely." The post that you yourself link to says, "Nonetheless, uniform selection can’t be ruled out a priori." And keep in mind that we're talking about only one trait, IQ, not all behavioral traits.

    In fact, it's plausible a priori that the selection pressures might have been roughly the same in Europe, Africa, etc. In other words, that the trade-offs between costs and benefits associated with IQ were roughly the same. You can get into this empirically or, if you prefer, with Just So stories about how hunting woolly mammoths requires more intelligence than picking bananas. My point is that this question is not even close to being answered by JayMan's saying, "Breeder's equation! Breeder's equation!"
  61. @anon
    As noted here, even if we assume, à la S.J. Gould, that the genetic character of humanity has not changed in the last 60k years or so due to selection, we would still expect to see substantial genetic differences between the major races on traits with substantial additive heritability, including behavioral traits. This is because genetic drift will push populations apart unless there are selective forces that push them together. For there to not exist substantial genetic differences in behavioral characteristics between races, there must have been more or less constant uniform or stabilizing selection across thousands of generations in all populations on all behavioral traits. That's not very likely. These expected differences, given known FST differences between races and typical heritability values, are of a magnitude that, when they occur between major demographic groups, are nowadays treated as major social problems. On top of this, of course, it is likely that there are many traits where selection has caused more divergence between groups that what is expected by drift alone; some of these traits are known as they have a simple genetic architecture (e.g., skin color, various disease resistance genes).

    we would still expect to see substantial genetic differences between the major races on traits with substantial additive heritability, including behavioral traits. This is because genetic drift will push populations apart unless there are selective forces that push them together.

    Precisely!

    Read More
  62. @Aaron Gross
    Are you kidding? How could the breeder's equation show that in our society today a 10-point difference is socially meaningful whereas a 0.1 point difference is not?

    Are you kidding? How could the breeder’s equation show that in our society today a 10-point difference is socially meaningful whereas a 0.1 point difference is not?

    I think you’re going off the rails there. Let’s bring the topic back to what we’re talking about.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Aaron Gross
    This was relevant to the topic. No one says that population averages are precisely equal. What I'm saying is that you claim differences, but have nothing to say about the magnitude (or direction) of those differences.

    The whole point of this controversy is whether there's a substantial difference in "natural" intelligence and, if so, the sign of that difference (whether whites are "naturally" more intelligent than blacks or vice versa). You won't, and presumably can't, address those questions.
  63. @Aaron Gross

    I think a basic understanding of biology would lead one to think that, a priori, populations separated for thousands of generations in widely different environments would develop significant genetic differences in cognition and behavior between the populations.
     
    "Significant." So Natural Selection is prescient enough to know what will be socially significant in Western societies in 2016? Then why don't you explain how a "basic understanding of biology" would lead to this. Explain it, quantitatively, don't just assert it.

    Remember, none of the "hereditarian" intelligence researchers were smart enough to see the implication that was so obvious to JayMan and you. They were stupid enough to believe that such a result was contingent and could only be determined empirically, which is why they devoted their time to quantitative studies, rather than just citing a blog post by JayMan.

    Look, it's idiocy like this stuff that JayMan wrote that helps give HBD a bad name, among those who are open to the questions it addresses.

    “Significant.” So Natural Selection is prescient enough to know what will be socially significant in Western societies in 2016? Then why don’t you explain how a “basic understanding of biology” would lead to this. Explain it, quantitatively, don’t just assert it.

    Cartman, what the hell are you talking about?

    Explain it, quantitatively, don’t just assert it.

    For completeness sake, the point is that even modest selective pressures can lead to substantial change quantitative traits if sustained over long periods of time – as long as these traits are in any way heritable (and all traits are). The breeder’s equation quantifies how fast we can expect such change to take place – that, far shorter than the time human races have been separated. Major cognitive and behavioral differences are a given.

    I’m getting tired of this argument. I sure hope this clears it up for you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @szopen
    Jayman, wait. Aaron is not saying that the large differences are impossible. Indeed, that breeder's equation AND experiments shows us that such large differences can arise very quickly. Moreover, we observe variation in different traits, just as we expect it is possible. However, this does not constitute a proof - IMO it justifies a different prior, but it does not justifies throwing out the opposition by saying (a difference exists - we expect that it should exist because of genes- therefore, it exists because of genes)
    , @Aaron Gross
    JayMan writes,

    For completeness sake, the point is that even modest selective pressures can lead to substantial change quantitative traits if sustained over long periods of time – as long as these traits are in any way heritable (and all traits are).
     
    [my emphasis]

    As another commenter noted, obviously I'm not denying that it can happen.


    The breeder’s equation quantifies how fast we can expect such change to take place – that, far shorter than the time human races have been separated.
     
    You keep pointing to that equation, but it's totally irrelevant here. Of course change within a population can take place fast. No one's denying that. That equation says nothing about whether change did take place fast (or at all), or whether it lead to substantial differences between populations.
    , @Aaron Gross

    I’m getting tired of this argument.
     
    Fair enough. I've said what I have to say, I'm leaving the last word to you.
  64. And there’s this. You go to the length of writing this paragraph about how stupid Chisala is:

    “Second, Chisala seems to have no understanding of the concepts of elite samples, founder effects, measurement error, sampling bias, or of basic statistical principles like statistics of small numbers. That’s not even to mention his apparent lack of understanding of the breeder’s equation (but at least there he has plenty of company). He seems to be mystified by apparent incongruities he encounters in his cherry-picked (and often outdated) samples because of his ignorance of these important concepts and many other facts.”

    And conclude this article with:

    “Aside from emptiness of the whole deprivation argument, as noted above, there is the fact (as pointed out by me in Welcome Readers from Portugal!) that outliers to this pattern of deprivation and IQ all perform in accordance to their measured IQ, not according to their level of deprivation. Poor rural Chinese perform nearly as well in IQ and scholastically as the other East Asian societies do. Citizens in wealthy Arab oil states perform as badly as those in poorer ones which lack oil. I’m sure Chisala doesn’t like this particular uncomfortable fact, so I suspect he concocted his feeble theory in part to try to nullify this unwelcome reality.”

    I go to that post, and I notice the most recent comments point out how there’s actually no real evidence to suggest rural chinese children score as high as is claimed (not like that’s a far-fetched idea to begin with). You consider that information “interesting”, but don’t seem to let it prevent you from again waving this around as proof deprivation is overrated (“save perhaps iodine deficiency”) and just how smart asians everywhere are.

    You like to mock him for supposedly having “no understanding” of things like elite samples, measurement error, sampling bias, or the statistics of small numbers, cherry-picking, and ignorance of many other facts, so why don’t we talk about HBDers often acting like asians everywhere (even the chinese, all 1+ billion of them and counting) have high IQ’s- from the most destitute chinese peasants to selected immigrant populations abroad- which is ultimately based heavily on asian-americans (and to a lesser extent, other small immigrant groups)? And just look at what else you bring to the table- a handful of DIY inventors from rural china (population 600 million+) and internet IQ test results.

    Seems like you don’t like this uncomfortable fact, so you just reused writings you knew had issues, hoping nobody would pick up on it (maybe you didn’t “overestimate people’s ability to spot the obvious”), just to preserve your bizarre idea (though hardly uncommon) of asians having uniformly high IQ’s, and the HBD fantasy of The Oriental Superman.

    And at the end of the day, it’s really hard to get around the overall tone of this paper. Other people have been debating on Unz with Chisala for months, putting together their own retorts and critiques published as articles, but none of them have written ones riddled with insults, personal attacks, or smug, self-absorbed reassurances of their own ideas- or really anything like this at all. You even tacitly insult everybody else at the very end, as if nobody else has brought worthwhile critiques, or that Chisala hasn’t had to reevaluate his ideas thanks to others.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    I go to that post, and I notice the most recent comments point out how there’s actually no real evidence to suggest rural chinese children score as high as is claimed (not like that’s a far-fetched idea to begin with). You consider that information “interesting”, but don’t seem to let it prevent you from again waving this around as proof deprivation is overrated (“save perhaps iodine deficiency”) and just how smart asians everywhere are.
     
    As I said a few comments up, IQ testing is a messy business. That said, I go by the PISA scores (and most other IQ tests in China as per Lynn & Vanhanen) until I get more data.

    You like to mock him for supposedly having “no understanding” of things like elite samples, measurement error, sampling bias, or the statistics of small numbers, cherry-picking, and ignorance of many other facts, so why don’t we talk about HBDers often acting like asians everywhere (even the chinese, all 1+ billion of them and counting) have high IQ’s- from the most destitute chinese peasants to selected immigrant populations abroad- which is ultimately based heavily on asian-americans (and to a lesser extent, other small immigrant groups)?
     
    You do understand averages, right?

    You're boring me. Not a good thing.

  65. @foo
    You lost all your cred by that first pic, which doesn't even make a distinction between 2 entirely separate races in India, Aryan and Dravidian. The 500 million or so Aryans in India are specifically the "Indo" in the phrase Indo-European people. Aryans occupy the entire top half of the Indian continent and their IQ's are European in distribution.

    Your maps shows Saudis and other middle easterners (Yemen!) as having a larger brain capacity than Aryans. This is both historically and currently lol-worthy.

    The Chinese maps are entirely irrelevant also. Asians have some measure of IQ but they are severely lacking in other measures, including any ability to think creatively. Their "language" isn't even letters and words, it's entirely little pictures ! An alien pygmy + roach combination.

    Methinks you need to first understand what IQ even means.

    2 separate races in India? Hahaha….. Aryan? lol

    combined with Brahmin, Brahmin Aryan would be so proud of their indian tradition and achievement. What is that?

    - Bending over 400 years for British pounding
    - Can’t come up with the nationhood, and yet their Master name it “Indian”
    - No proper language development, and very proud if one can speak A English sentence properly.

    (If you can’t capture what’s going on, here’s what you can observe next time. Throw one Indian (A) into a group that has another Indian (B). If “B” starts talking, you’d see “A” Indian aggressively start talking, even if its rubbish, i.e., to show off their proficiency in English language.)

    Asians have some measure of IQ but they are severely lacking in other measures, including any ability to think creatively.

    The last time I saw an Indian creativity is spewing out their master English language and be proud of being a Champion in “Spelling Bee”.

    Read More
  66. It seems to me that deconstructing twaddle in anything but a cursory manner is not only a waste of energy, but a hazard to the intellectual environment. It is like critiquing Martin Heiddeger or Oswald Spengler. It only gives life to what would otherwise be seen for what it is, total rubbish.

    Read More
  67. @Advinesta
    And there's this. You go to the length of writing this paragraph about how stupid Chisala is:

    "Second, Chisala seems to have no understanding of the concepts of elite samples, founder effects, measurement error, sampling bias, or of basic statistical principles like statistics of small numbers. That’s not even to mention his apparent lack of understanding of the breeder’s equation (but at least there he has plenty of company). He seems to be mystified by apparent incongruities he encounters in his cherry-picked (and often outdated) samples because of his ignorance of these important concepts and many other facts."

    And conclude this article with:

    "Aside from emptiness of the whole deprivation argument, as noted above, there is the fact (as pointed out by me in Welcome Readers from Portugal!) that outliers to this pattern of deprivation and IQ all perform in accordance to their measured IQ, not according to their level of deprivation. Poor rural Chinese perform nearly as well in IQ and scholastically as the other East Asian societies do. Citizens in wealthy Arab oil states perform as badly as those in poorer ones which lack oil. I’m sure Chisala doesn’t like this particular uncomfortable fact, so I suspect he concocted his feeble theory in part to try to nullify this unwelcome reality."

    I go to that post, and I notice the most recent comments point out how there's actually no real evidence to suggest rural chinese children score as high as is claimed (not like that's a far-fetched idea to begin with). You consider that information "interesting", but don't seem to let it prevent you from again waving this around as proof deprivation is overrated ("save perhaps iodine deficiency") and just how smart asians everywhere are.

    You like to mock him for supposedly having "no understanding" of things like elite samples, measurement error, sampling bias, or the statistics of small numbers, cherry-picking, and ignorance of many other facts, so why don't we talk about HBDers often acting like asians everywhere (even the chinese, all 1+ billion of them and counting) have high IQ's- from the most destitute chinese peasants to selected immigrant populations abroad- which is ultimately based heavily on asian-americans (and to a lesser extent, other small immigrant groups)? And just look at what else you bring to the table- a handful of DIY inventors from rural china (population 600 million+) and internet IQ test results.

    Seems like you don't like this uncomfortable fact, so you just reused writings you knew had issues, hoping nobody would pick up on it (maybe you didn't "overestimate people's ability to spot the obvious"), just to preserve your bizarre idea (though hardly uncommon) of asians having uniformly high IQ's, and the HBD fantasy of The Oriental Superman.

    And at the end of the day, it's really hard to get around the overall tone of this paper. Other people have been debating on Unz with Chisala for months, putting together their own retorts and critiques published as articles, but none of them have written ones riddled with insults, personal attacks, or smug, self-absorbed reassurances of their own ideas- or really anything like this at all. You even tacitly insult everybody else at the very end, as if nobody else has brought worthwhile critiques, or that Chisala hasn't had to reevaluate his ideas thanks to others.

    I go to that post, and I notice the most recent comments point out how there’s actually no real evidence to suggest rural chinese children score as high as is claimed (not like that’s a far-fetched idea to begin with). You consider that information “interesting”, but don’t seem to let it prevent you from again waving this around as proof deprivation is overrated (“save perhaps iodine deficiency”) and just how smart asians everywhere are.

    As I said a few comments up, IQ testing is a messy business. That said, I go by the PISA scores (and most other IQ tests in China as per Lynn & Vanhanen) until I get more data.

    You like to mock him for supposedly having “no understanding” of things like elite samples, measurement error, sampling bias, or the statistics of small numbers, cherry-picking, and ignorance of many other facts, so why don’t we talk about HBDers often acting like asians everywhere (even the chinese, all 1+ billion of them and counting) have high IQ’s- from the most destitute chinese peasants to selected immigrant populations abroad- which is ultimately based heavily on asian-americans (and to a lesser extent, other small immigrant groups)?

    You do understand averages, right?

    You’re boring me. Not a good thing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Advinesta
    "As I said a few comments up, IQ testing is a messy business. That said, I go by the PISA scores (and most other IQ tests in China as per Lynn & Vanhanen) until I got more data."

    But there does seem to be good evidence to suggest that those scores are highly accurate, from someone who poured over the references themselves, nevermind test scores out of China in general. And the idea you're pushing forth to begin with is nonsensical, that malnourished, diseased, poorly schooled chinese children could have higher IQ's than Swiss ones (but you seem to question whether iodine deficiency can impact IQ, and allow this as the only potential environmental insult). You don't consider any of that in this post, and reiterate it like it's unquestioned.

    "You do understand averages, right?"

    Yes, I do. I'm not as stupid as you seem to think I am (and I guess nowhere near as stupid as Chisala.) When I said "everywhere have high IQ's", I was talking about averages, and the idea that asians everywhere average high IQ's , not that ALL asians have high IQ's. Because when you say "Poor rural Chinese perform nearly as well in IQ and scholastically as the other East Asian societies do.", from a paper that says they scored slightly higher than the Swiss despite all of their disadvantages, how else is one supposed to take this other than asians uniformly AVERAGE higher IQ's, even in the poorer, more backwards parts of China (especially when even more of China looked like that only a few decades ago)?

    Another quote from that paper:

    "The results are clearest in cases where countries have very different living conditions than other countries in the same world region. China has had far worse living conditions than Japan or South Korea, but average IQ scores that are close to those of its neighbors. Taiwanese born in the early 1940s into poor conditions on the island of Taiwan or in Mainland China recorded an average IQ of 102 (Rodd, 1959)."

    Yep- even in the worst of conditions, that breathtaking asian intellect always shines through!

    Just don't pay attention to things like this:

    http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2015/05/29/u-s-schools-expelled-8000-chinese-students-for-poor-grades-cheating/

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/10132391/Riot-after-Chinese-teachers-try-to-stop-pupils-cheating.html

    Though given that the paper is based on broad test results, I don't think there's anything specifically about rural chinese children- just the state of China as a whole and test results that are supposedly applicable to a country of 1 billion+ people. And then how it goes on to claim things like elite nigerians have IQ's well below those of elite germans (based on a then-unpublished paper), when Chisala has devoted extensive work to showcasing the prowess of elite Nigerians and such, while also never claiming these are perfectly representative... this doesn't seem like a sensible paper to be falling back on.

  68. @JayMan

    I go to that post, and I notice the most recent comments point out how there’s actually no real evidence to suggest rural chinese children score as high as is claimed (not like that’s a far-fetched idea to begin with). You consider that information “interesting”, but don’t seem to let it prevent you from again waving this around as proof deprivation is overrated (“save perhaps iodine deficiency”) and just how smart asians everywhere are.
     
    As I said a few comments up, IQ testing is a messy business. That said, I go by the PISA scores (and most other IQ tests in China as per Lynn & Vanhanen) until I get more data.

    You like to mock him for supposedly having “no understanding” of things like elite samples, measurement error, sampling bias, or the statistics of small numbers, cherry-picking, and ignorance of many other facts, so why don’t we talk about HBDers often acting like asians everywhere (even the chinese, all 1+ billion of them and counting) have high IQ’s- from the most destitute chinese peasants to selected immigrant populations abroad- which is ultimately based heavily on asian-americans (and to a lesser extent, other small immigrant groups)?
     
    You do understand averages, right?

    You're boring me. Not a good thing.

    “As I said a few comments up, IQ testing is a messy business. That said, I go by the PISA scores (and most other IQ tests in China as per Lynn & Vanhanen) until I got more data.”

    But there does seem to be good evidence to suggest that those scores are highly accurate, from someone who poured over the references themselves, nevermind test scores out of China in general. And the idea you’re pushing forth to begin with is nonsensical, that malnourished, diseased, poorly schooled chinese children could have higher IQ’s than Swiss ones (but you seem to question whether iodine deficiency can impact IQ, and allow this as the only potential environmental insult). You don’t consider any of that in this post, and reiterate it like it’s unquestioned.

    “You do understand averages, right?”

    Yes, I do. I’m not as stupid as you seem to think I am (and I guess nowhere near as stupid as Chisala.) When I said “everywhere have high IQ’s”, I was talking about averages, and the idea that asians everywhere average high IQ’s , not that ALL asians have high IQ’s. Because when you say “Poor rural Chinese perform nearly as well in IQ and scholastically as the other East Asian societies do.”, from a paper that says they scored slightly higher than the Swiss despite all of their disadvantages, how else is one supposed to take this other than asians uniformly AVERAGE higher IQ’s, even in the poorer, more backwards parts of China (especially when even more of China looked like that only a few decades ago)?

    Another quote from that paper:

    “The results are clearest in cases where countries have very different living conditions than other countries in the same world region. China has had far worse living conditions than Japan or South Korea, but average IQ scores that are close to those of its neighbors. Taiwanese born in the early 1940s into poor conditions on the island of Taiwan or in Mainland China recorded an average IQ of 102 (Rodd, 1959).”

    Yep- even in the worst of conditions, that breathtaking asian intellect always shines through!

    Just don’t pay attention to things like this:

    http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2015/05/29/u-s-schools-expelled-8000-chinese-students-for-poor-grades-cheating/

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/10132391/Riot-after-Chinese-teachers-try-to-stop-pupils-cheating.html

    Though given that the paper is based on broad test results, I don’t think there’s anything specifically about rural chinese children- just the state of China as a whole and test results that are supposedly applicable to a country of 1 billion+ people. And then how it goes on to claim things like elite nigerians have IQ’s well below those of elite germans (based on a then-unpublished paper), when Chisala has devoted extensive work to showcasing the prowess of elite Nigerians and such, while also never claiming these are perfectly representative… this doesn’t seem like a sensible paper to be falling back on.

    Read More
    • Replies: @PandaAtWar

    And the idea you’re pushing forth to begin with is nonsensical, that malnourished, diseased, poorly schooled chinese children could have higher IQ’s than Swiss ones...
     
    Yes, that malnourished, diseased, poorly schooled (Han) Chinese children could have higher IQ’s than Swiss ones, on average , easily. Tatoo that into your brain. And on average, the former could beat the latter, on Maths for instance, with one eye closed on any given day of a week.

    PISA 2012 tested 12 the most representative provinces across China, many of them being inland and much poorer than Shanghai. None is published, yet part of the results were leaked in the Chinese local press, and guess what, Shanghai's scores were not even No 1 in China - got beaten by a far poorer province - not a surprise in eyes of ANY Chinese...

    I put these kind of questions in the Comment Sections of Brooklyn's Tom Loveless's crappy BS articles, the result? that chickensh!t Loveless shamelessly erased the entire Comment Sections (including Panda's lethal rebuttals) below his brainless articles a couple of months later in order to save his own skin... otherwise wait until the incoming PISA releases to see all of China's major inland poor provinces... PISA's Andreas Schleicher was brave? Give me a break. He claims those things cuz he saw all the unpublished results of China.

    And you, don't even dare to quote some crappy amatuer "journalist" hit pieces from wsj and DT. They are not even funny. And Jayman got the point though - do you really understand averages for god's sake?
    , @JayMan

    Yep- even in the worst of conditions, that breathtaking asian intellect always shines through!

    Just don’t pay attention to things like this:
     

    You caveats are duly noted. But, I return to the point at the beginning of my last comment to you, getting accurate IQ test scores is a messy business.
    , @phil
    See Anatoly Karlin's discussion of China's 2009 PISA results.

    http://akarlin.com/2012/08/analysis-of-chinas-pisa-2009-results/

    On average, rural Chinese did well. The hard evidence is both that average IQ in China is somewhat higher than in Northern Europe AND that there is rampant cheating among Chinese. Note that average living standards in China are still below those in Mexico. Moreover, a positive Flynn effect still exists in China whereas it has stopped or become negative in Northern Europe.
  69. @JayMan
    OK, how about:

    1. Where does culture come from?
    2. No, You Don't Have Free Will, and This Is Why

    Jayman,
    I have already discussed with you on that topic. I even had the vague impression that you half- (or maybe quarter-) way agreed with me.

    The answer for the (1) is: “sometimes culture comes with invaders, who implement it against the wishes of the nation, install its institution, brainwash the population and kill the opposition”. In that case it’s hard to argue that culture was result of the genetic predisposition of the local population, and – that over course of the next few generation – this implemented culture won’t affect the population.

    Read More
  70. @iffen
    Yes we do have free will!

    Sorry jayman. I fought and struggled with Bizarro iffen to not make this comment. I lost. I'm not sure why. I really do want to stop saying we have free will every time you and hbd chick say otherwise. I just can't stop, it's, it's, it's something I can't seem to control.

    There is misunderstanding here. We have no free will in a purely philosphical sense. However, except sophisticated philosophers and thinkers no one actually use this purely philosophical sense.
    “I” is my brain. There is no “i” besides my brain. What i will do is dictated by the structure of my brain. Therefore, I have no free will because what I will do is dictated by me.

    Read More
  71. @JayMan

    “Significant.” So Natural Selection is prescient enough to know what will be socially significant in Western societies in 2016? Then why don’t you explain how a “basic understanding of biology” would lead to this. Explain it, quantitatively, don’t just assert it.
     
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puFJ_hBTplc

    Cartman, what the hell are you talking about?


    Explain it, quantitatively, don’t just assert it.
     
    For completeness sake, the point is that even modest selective pressures can lead to substantial change quantitative traits if sustained over long periods of time – as long as these traits are in any way heritable (and all traits are). The breeder's equation quantifies how fast we can expect such change to take place – that, far shorter than the time human races have been separated. Major cognitive and behavioral differences are a given.

    I'm getting tired of this argument. I sure hope this clears it up for you.

    Jayman, wait. Aaron is not saying that the large differences are impossible. Indeed, that breeder’s equation AND experiments shows us that such large differences can arise very quickly. Moreover, we observe variation in different traits, just as we expect it is possible. However, this does not constitute a proof – IMO it justifies a different prior, but it does not justifies throwing out the opposition by saying (a difference exists – we expect that it should exist because of genes- therefore, it exists because of genes)

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    Aaron is not saying that the large differences are impossible. Indeed, that breeder’s equation AND experiments shows us that such large differences can arise very quickly. Moreover, we observe variation in different traits, just as we expect it is possible. However, this does not constitute a proof – IMO it justifies a different prior
     
    I believe my claim was:

    In fact, a priori we should expect them not to be, since such equivalence after so many generations of separate evolution is nigh impossible.
     
  72. @Jus' Sayin'...
    To paraphrase the authors' argument: "Race has no place in modern physical anthropology. The concept/term ought to be replaced by some other concept/term, e.g., common ancestry, clade, or perhaps breed." They probably should have thought this through a little more before publishing

    Race has no place in modern anthropology?

    That’s fine. Because the AAA says anthropology is not a science anyway.

    Read More
  73. @Advinesta
    "As I said a few comments up, IQ testing is a messy business. That said, I go by the PISA scores (and most other IQ tests in China as per Lynn & Vanhanen) until I got more data."

    But there does seem to be good evidence to suggest that those scores are highly accurate, from someone who poured over the references themselves, nevermind test scores out of China in general. And the idea you're pushing forth to begin with is nonsensical, that malnourished, diseased, poorly schooled chinese children could have higher IQ's than Swiss ones (but you seem to question whether iodine deficiency can impact IQ, and allow this as the only potential environmental insult). You don't consider any of that in this post, and reiterate it like it's unquestioned.

    "You do understand averages, right?"

    Yes, I do. I'm not as stupid as you seem to think I am (and I guess nowhere near as stupid as Chisala.) When I said "everywhere have high IQ's", I was talking about averages, and the idea that asians everywhere average high IQ's , not that ALL asians have high IQ's. Because when you say "Poor rural Chinese perform nearly as well in IQ and scholastically as the other East Asian societies do.", from a paper that says they scored slightly higher than the Swiss despite all of their disadvantages, how else is one supposed to take this other than asians uniformly AVERAGE higher IQ's, even in the poorer, more backwards parts of China (especially when even more of China looked like that only a few decades ago)?

    Another quote from that paper:

    "The results are clearest in cases where countries have very different living conditions than other countries in the same world region. China has had far worse living conditions than Japan or South Korea, but average IQ scores that are close to those of its neighbors. Taiwanese born in the early 1940s into poor conditions on the island of Taiwan or in Mainland China recorded an average IQ of 102 (Rodd, 1959)."

    Yep- even in the worst of conditions, that breathtaking asian intellect always shines through!

    Just don't pay attention to things like this:

    http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2015/05/29/u-s-schools-expelled-8000-chinese-students-for-poor-grades-cheating/

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/10132391/Riot-after-Chinese-teachers-try-to-stop-pupils-cheating.html

    Though given that the paper is based on broad test results, I don't think there's anything specifically about rural chinese children- just the state of China as a whole and test results that are supposedly applicable to a country of 1 billion+ people. And then how it goes on to claim things like elite nigerians have IQ's well below those of elite germans (based on a then-unpublished paper), when Chisala has devoted extensive work to showcasing the prowess of elite Nigerians and such, while also never claiming these are perfectly representative... this doesn't seem like a sensible paper to be falling back on.

    And the idea you’re pushing forth to begin with is nonsensical, that malnourished, diseased, poorly schooled chinese children could have higher IQ’s than Swiss ones…

    Yes, that malnourished, diseased, poorly schooled (Han) Chinese children could have higher IQ’s than Swiss ones, on average , easily. Tatoo that into your brain. And on average, the former could beat the latter, on Maths for instance, with one eye closed on any given day of a week.

    PISA 2012 tested 12 the most representative provinces across China, many of them being inland and much poorer than Shanghai. None is published, yet part of the results were leaked in the Chinese local press, and guess what, Shanghai’s scores were not even No 1 in China – got beaten by a far poorer province – not a surprise in eyes of ANY Chinese…

    I put these kind of questions in the Comment Sections of Brooklyn’s Tom Loveless’s crappy BS articles, the result? that chickensh!t Loveless shamelessly erased the entire Comment Sections (including Panda’s lethal rebuttals) below his brainless articles a couple of months later in order to save his own skin… otherwise wait until the incoming PISA releases to see all of China’s major inland poor provinces… PISA’s Andreas Schleicher was brave? Give me a break. He claims those things cuz he saw all the unpublished results of China.

    And you, don’t even dare to quote some crappy amatuer “journalist” hit pieces from wsj and DT. They are not even funny. And Jayman got the point though – do you really understand averages for god’s sake?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Advinesta
    I should have expected Unz's resident chinese nationalist shit troll to pop up sooner or later (and once again, refers to himself in the third person). You aren't going to stop me or anyone else from quoting anything that might call into question the test scores that HBDers accept uncritically, as much as it offends your delicate racial pride. And how you refer to them as "crappy amateur journalist hit pieces"- yeah, one of them has direct references throughout, and the other is of a widely reported near-riot with photos included. Modern chinese students have variously developed a reputation for cheating, whether at home or international students, and there's reams of documentation for this. I am *not* saying the average chinese student cheats, but it's pervasive enough where there's reams of documentation for it. What's truly funny is how much someone questioning the idea the Chinese are the apex of humanity gets to you. And I'm not even saying the chinese are low IQ.

    Here's more on the phenomenon of chinese students cheating- but you'll just probably wave it off as all propaganda:

    http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/28/world/asia/china-exam-cheats/
    https://educationrealist.wordpress.com/2013/10/08/asian-immigrants-and-what-no-one-mentions-aloud/
    https://educationrealist.wordpress.com/2015/01/18/what-you-probably-dont-know-about-the-gaokao/
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-levy/college-applicants-cheat_b_1074544.html
    http://money.cnn.com/2014/07/01/pf/college/chinese-students-cheating/

    I'd appreciate more than your second hand rumors about leaked results in the chinese press about PISA (one of those tests HBDers swear up and down are excellent proxies for IQ) results, and how an even poorer chinese province did far better. But maybe I've just yet to accept the grand reality of chinese superiority, that even in the worst conditions, chinese students do better than Swiss ones*, that would stop from daring to question such a thing. I mean, it sounds really stupid and crazy, but I guess this is to be expected for a member a lower race.

    I have no idea what your second to last paragraph is really about, or who Tom Loveless and Andreas Schleicher are.

    *So what does that mean for their real IQ's? If they do even better, are their actual IQ's, excluding those factors, 110+ or something? Or do you also believe poor schooling, disease, malnutrition etc. etc. have marginal effects on IQ?
  74. Jayman’s problemhere is that he could have reversed the order of his rebuttal to make it much more acceptable emotionally for many: he started by listing words on how retarded Chisala is, then he listed some evidences – Jayman should have considered reversing this order by listing evidences first, then concluding by how retarded Chisala is in the end, ROFL, or without the conclusion like James Thompson did as a gesture of courtesy.

    But Chisala does strike Panda as a sort of SSA village priest since his first article in UNZ. He talks like a dark wizzard who could pretty much fool everyone in the village. This can be a good thing and a bad thing. Good thing is that Chisala could gain much of self-confidence in front of the village audiences; the bad thing is that with that souped up self confidence he is way too optimistic on punking through a scientific field beyond that village church…

    The slightly more advanced version of Chisala is this snakeoil salesman:

    Deepak Chopra - the enemies of Reason

    Have a good laugh on the following clips, guys:

    Seriously, if Chisala ever wants to engage in a slightly honest conversation here, Panda would highly recommend him picking up a Statistics 101 manual in a bookstore first.

    Read More
  75. @PandaAtWar

    And the idea you’re pushing forth to begin with is nonsensical, that malnourished, diseased, poorly schooled chinese children could have higher IQ’s than Swiss ones...
     
    Yes, that malnourished, diseased, poorly schooled (Han) Chinese children could have higher IQ’s than Swiss ones, on average , easily. Tatoo that into your brain. And on average, the former could beat the latter, on Maths for instance, with one eye closed on any given day of a week.

    PISA 2012 tested 12 the most representative provinces across China, many of them being inland and much poorer than Shanghai. None is published, yet part of the results were leaked in the Chinese local press, and guess what, Shanghai's scores were not even No 1 in China - got beaten by a far poorer province - not a surprise in eyes of ANY Chinese...

    I put these kind of questions in the Comment Sections of Brooklyn's Tom Loveless's crappy BS articles, the result? that chickensh!t Loveless shamelessly erased the entire Comment Sections (including Panda's lethal rebuttals) below his brainless articles a couple of months later in order to save his own skin... otherwise wait until the incoming PISA releases to see all of China's major inland poor provinces... PISA's Andreas Schleicher was brave? Give me a break. He claims those things cuz he saw all the unpublished results of China.

    And you, don't even dare to quote some crappy amatuer "journalist" hit pieces from wsj and DT. They are not even funny. And Jayman got the point though - do you really understand averages for god's sake?

    I should have expected Unz’s resident chinese nationalist shit troll to pop up sooner or later (and once again, refers to himself in the third person). You aren’t going to stop me or anyone else from quoting anything that might call into question the test scores that HBDers accept uncritically, as much as it offends your delicate racial pride. And how you refer to them as “crappy amateur journalist hit pieces”- yeah, one of them has direct references throughout, and the other is of a widely reported near-riot with photos included. Modern chinese students have variously developed a reputation for cheating, whether at home or international students, and there’s reams of documentation for this. I am *not* saying the average chinese student cheats, but it’s pervasive enough where there’s reams of documentation for it. What’s truly funny is how much someone questioning the idea the Chinese are the apex of humanity gets to you. And I’m not even saying the chinese are low IQ.

    Here’s more on the phenomenon of chinese students cheating- but you’ll just probably wave it off as all propaganda:

    http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/28/world/asia/china-exam-cheats/

    https://educationrealist.wordpress.com/2013/10/08/asian-immigrants-and-what-no-one-mentions-aloud/

    https://educationrealist.wordpress.com/2015/01/18/what-you-probably-dont-know-about-the-gaokao/

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-levy/college-applicants-cheat_b_1074544.html

    http://money.cnn.com/2014/07/01/pf/college/chinese-students-cheating/

    I’d appreciate more than your second hand rumors about leaked results in the chinese press about PISA (one of those tests HBDers swear up and down are excellent proxies for IQ) results, and how an even poorer chinese province did far better. But maybe I’ve just yet to accept the grand reality of chinese superiority, that even in the worst conditions, chinese students do better than Swiss ones*, that would stop from daring to question such a thing. I mean, it sounds really stupid and crazy, but I guess this is to be expected for a member a lower race.

    I have no idea what your second to last paragraph is really about, or who Tom Loveless and Andreas Schleicher are.

    *So what does that mean for their real IQ’s? If they do even better, are their actual IQ’s, excluding those factors, 110+ or something? Or do you also believe poor schooling, disease, malnutrition etc. etc. have marginal effects on IQ?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/08/why-winners-become-cheaters/

    Schurr: The more people win, the more likely they are to cheat; and the more they cheat, the more likely they are to win.
     
    Get use to it.
    , @PandaAtWar


    I should have expected Unz’s resident chinese nationalist shit troll to pop up sooner or later (and once again, refers to himself in the third person).

     

    Congrats! That's about the only smart sentence out of you in this section that seems to reflect 100 IQ. ROFL

    You aren’t going to stop me or anyone else from quoting anything that might call into question the test scores that HBDers accept uncritically, as much as it offends your delicate racial pride.
     
    The more you go down this line of sensational hit pieces of so-called "journalist evidences" out of MSM good N old CNN-Cartel (CNN, BBC, Money, WSJ, oh yeah hufflingtonpost, what a treat! LOL... and some politically-oriented "educational" activist blogs) , the stupider you sound when the real results come in. Why the heck Panda gonna stop you? Pls go ahead quoting full speed. ROFL

    Here’s more on the phenomenon of chinese students cheating- but you’ll just probably wave it off as all propaganda:

    http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/28/world/asia/china-exam-cheats/

    https://educationrealist.wordpress.com/2013/10/08/asian-immigrants-and-what-no-one-mentions-aloud/

    https://educationrealist.wordpress.com/2015/01/18/what-you-probably-dont-know-about-the-gaokao/

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-levy/college-applicants-cheat_b_1074544.html

    http://money.cnn.com/2014/07/01/pf/college/chinese-students-cheating/
     
    Here we go... LOL. You're soooo patheticly predictable.

    I’d appreciate more than your second hand rumors about leaked results in the chinese press about PISA (one of those tests HBDers swear up and down are excellent proxies for IQ) results, and how an even poorer chinese province did far better.

     

    Panda didn't use "far". You did. But actually it could well be "far".

    To satisfy your curioisity. Zhejiang province (population: 55 mio) beat Shanghai in 2012 PISA:

    Zhejiang's scores were leaked in a tiny dark corner of a tiny local newspaper -

    Zhejiang’s Science 567 (No.2 in the world, 8 points below Shanghai), Reading 525 ( No.7 in the world, 1 point behind Singapore), Maths 598 (No.2 in the world, only 2 points behind Shanghai).

    Why Zhejiang actually beat Shanghai?

    Zhejiang doesn't have "hukou cheat method" (acoording to Tom Loveless) of Shanghai - so the entire fairytale that Tom Loveless bult his "rebuttals"on goes to the dogshit after Padna pointed this out in his Harvard column. OECD PISA 2012 didn't randomly choose Zhejiang's scores (as they did with most others), but deliberately select 80% score samples from the poorest rural areas of Zhejiang (imbedded in the tiny footnote of PISA release). On top of that, ALL the elite schools - provincial and city heavyweights - in Zhejiang's cities didn't participate PISA 2012 at all. This means Zhejiang beat Shanghai in 2012, easily, which is no surprise to any Chinese student cuz Zhejiang, and acoule of other bigger sized provinces such as Jiangsu, Shangdong, etc. always beat Shanghai.

    Now you can hang your CNN hit piece "journalist cartel" on the nearest lamp posts. ROFL



    I have no idea what your second to last paragraph is really about, or who Tom Loveless and Andreas Schleicher are.
     
    So you have no idea? Seriously? ROFL. Tom Loveless' series from Harvard were the very first loose cannons (released on the 2nd day of OECD PISA news) to start the whole sour-grape thing, which were then followed up by the tsunami waves of "Chinese cheating, and the Chinese are cheaters" by the subordinate lackey CNN&Associates to reach the worldwide sheeple masses, you included, weeks and months later. The central piece of Tom Loveless rests on a widespread junvenile wild assumption that rural Chinese have lower IQ than urban Chinese and Shanghai have strict "hukou system", before it was casually slapped into the Dark Age by Panda @War with ease under his Harvard column, of course. ROFL

    And you, you talk about PISA with a straight and blue face without knowing whom Tom Loveless and Andreas Schleicher are? ROFL. It's like talking about WWII without knowing whom was Winston Churchil or commenting here without knowing who the heck is Ron Unz... Are you all right?

    ...second thought, then of course you've never heard of them! Panda would venture that intelletual giants such as CNN and Hufflington alike fit you lot much handier, don't they? LOL
  76. @Advinesta
    "As I said a few comments up, IQ testing is a messy business. That said, I go by the PISA scores (and most other IQ tests in China as per Lynn & Vanhanen) until I got more data."

    But there does seem to be good evidence to suggest that those scores are highly accurate, from someone who poured over the references themselves, nevermind test scores out of China in general. And the idea you're pushing forth to begin with is nonsensical, that malnourished, diseased, poorly schooled chinese children could have higher IQ's than Swiss ones (but you seem to question whether iodine deficiency can impact IQ, and allow this as the only potential environmental insult). You don't consider any of that in this post, and reiterate it like it's unquestioned.

    "You do understand averages, right?"

    Yes, I do. I'm not as stupid as you seem to think I am (and I guess nowhere near as stupid as Chisala.) When I said "everywhere have high IQ's", I was talking about averages, and the idea that asians everywhere average high IQ's , not that ALL asians have high IQ's. Because when you say "Poor rural Chinese perform nearly as well in IQ and scholastically as the other East Asian societies do.", from a paper that says they scored slightly higher than the Swiss despite all of their disadvantages, how else is one supposed to take this other than asians uniformly AVERAGE higher IQ's, even in the poorer, more backwards parts of China (especially when even more of China looked like that only a few decades ago)?

    Another quote from that paper:

    "The results are clearest in cases where countries have very different living conditions than other countries in the same world region. China has had far worse living conditions than Japan or South Korea, but average IQ scores that are close to those of its neighbors. Taiwanese born in the early 1940s into poor conditions on the island of Taiwan or in Mainland China recorded an average IQ of 102 (Rodd, 1959)."

    Yep- even in the worst of conditions, that breathtaking asian intellect always shines through!

    Just don't pay attention to things like this:

    http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2015/05/29/u-s-schools-expelled-8000-chinese-students-for-poor-grades-cheating/

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/10132391/Riot-after-Chinese-teachers-try-to-stop-pupils-cheating.html

    Though given that the paper is based on broad test results, I don't think there's anything specifically about rural chinese children- just the state of China as a whole and test results that are supposedly applicable to a country of 1 billion+ people. And then how it goes on to claim things like elite nigerians have IQ's well below those of elite germans (based on a then-unpublished paper), when Chisala has devoted extensive work to showcasing the prowess of elite Nigerians and such, while also never claiming these are perfectly representative... this doesn't seem like a sensible paper to be falling back on.

    Yep- even in the worst of conditions, that breathtaking asian intellect always shines through!

    Just don’t pay attention to things like this:

    You caveats are duly noted. But, I return to the point at the beginning of my last comment to you, getting accurate IQ test scores is a messy business.

    Read More
  77. @szopen
    Jayman, wait. Aaron is not saying that the large differences are impossible. Indeed, that breeder's equation AND experiments shows us that such large differences can arise very quickly. Moreover, we observe variation in different traits, just as we expect it is possible. However, this does not constitute a proof - IMO it justifies a different prior, but it does not justifies throwing out the opposition by saying (a difference exists - we expect that it should exist because of genes- therefore, it exists because of genes)

    Aaron is not saying that the large differences are impossible. Indeed, that breeder’s equation AND experiments shows us that such large differences can arise very quickly. Moreover, we observe variation in different traits, just as we expect it is possible. However, this does not constitute a proof – IMO it justifies a different prior

    I believe my claim was:

    In fact, a priori we should expect them not to be, since such equivalence after so many generations of separate evolution is nigh impossible.

    Read More
  78. “The incapacity to forsee the distant consequences of acts and the tendency to be guided soley by the instinct of the moment condemns the individual as well as the race to remain forever in an inferior state. It is only in proportion as they are able to dominate their instincts, in proportion, that is, as they acquire will-power and in consequence empire over themselves, that people can understand the importance of discipline, the necessity of sacrificing themselves to a civilized state.”
    Le Bon had the entire racial question sorted out in Psychology of Peoples, 1898.

    Read More
  79. @anon
    As noted here, even if we assume, à la S.J. Gould, that the genetic character of humanity has not changed in the last 60k years or so due to selection, we would still expect to see substantial genetic differences between the major races on traits with substantial additive heritability, including behavioral traits. This is because genetic drift will push populations apart unless there are selective forces that push them together. For there to not exist substantial genetic differences in behavioral characteristics between races, there must have been more or less constant uniform or stabilizing selection across thousands of generations in all populations on all behavioral traits. That's not very likely. These expected differences, given known FST differences between races and typical heritability values, are of a magnitude that, when they occur between major demographic groups, are nowadays treated as major social problems. On top of this, of course, it is likely that there are many traits where selection has caused more divergence between groups that what is expected by drift alone; some of these traits are known as they have a simple genetic architecture (e.g., skin color, various disease resistance genes).

    First of all, thanks for actually addressing the topic.

    I don’t see how you can say that such selection is “not very likely.” The post that you yourself link to says, “Nonetheless, uniform selection can’t be ruled out a priori.” And keep in mind that we’re talking about only one trait, IQ, not all behavioral traits.

    In fact, it’s plausible a priori that the selection pressures might have been roughly the same in Europe, Africa, etc. In other words, that the trade-offs between costs and benefits associated with IQ were roughly the same. You can get into this empirically or, if you prefer, with Just So stories about how hunting woolly mammoths requires more intelligence than picking bananas. My point is that this question is not even close to being answered by JayMan’s saying, “Breeder’s equation! Breeder’s equation!”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Aaron Gross
    Just to clarify this comment I made: When I said "plausible...might," I meant that the case of no substantial difference can't be ruled out a priori as implausible. I didn't mean to suggest that it's any more likely or even as likely as the alternative.
  80. @JayMan

    Are you kidding? How could the breeder’s equation show that in our society today a 10-point difference is socially meaningful whereas a 0.1 point difference is not?
     
    I think you're going off the rails there. Let's bring the topic back to what we're talking about.

    This was relevant to the topic. No one says that population averages are precisely equal. What I’m saying is that you claim differences, but have nothing to say about the magnitude (or direction) of those differences.

    The whole point of this controversy is whether there’s a substantial difference in “natural” intelligence and, if so, the sign of that difference (whether whites are “naturally” more intelligent than blacks or vice versa). You won’t, and presumably can’t, address those questions.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    This was relevant to the topic. No one says that population averages are precisely equal. What I’m saying is that you claim differences, but have nothing to say about the magnitude (or direction) of those differences.
     
    Come on Aaron: you ever hear of the expression "grasping at straws?" No, equal selection in all cognitive and behavioral traits is so unlikely it's not worth considering. And even beyond what we'd expect from theory, there is the fact that we have measurable differences between groups. We do indeed have plenty of data on the size and the magnitude. Hence this whole exercise is might silly.
  81. @JayMan

    No one would expect IQ or any other trait to be precisely equal for two populations to the nth decimal place. The question is whether the difference in their “natural” IQs are enough to be socially meaningful. A 10 point difference is meaningful; a 0.1 point difference is not.
     
    That too follows from the breeder's equation. Use it and see.

    That’s nonsense. You yourself just agreed that it’s not necessarily the case! That is, that the environments might select for roughly equal average intelligence.

    Read More
    • Replies: @szopen
    First, forgive me the layman's language. I hope, however, that the gist of what I want to say will be understandable.

    Yes, there is possibility that environments have exactly same pressures for intelligence. But this is very, very unlikely.

    The fact that hypothetically two environment have the same intellectual demands does not mean they would select for the same intelligence. Intelligence is costly (in terms of energy), and the energy available was limited. You have to optimize, you have to find a balance between e.g. your immune system, brain, muscles and so on.

    Therefore, if two environments are exactly the same in all pressures EXCEPT JUST ONE, and not tied to the intelligence at all, then this one difference would still mean that selection pressures for intelligence will be different. What you are postulating is either all environments have exactly the same all selection pressures, or that differences in pressures balance each other out. This is unlikely.

    Hence, the prior should be that there are genetically motivated differences in intelligence averages between populations.

    I agree that you cannot a priori conclude that those differences will be large or at least socially meaningful. However, seeing that we observe large differences, and that our prior is that there should be genetically-based differences, it's hard to see how we cannot take the fact that observable large differences are at least in part gene-based as the default position.

  82. @JayMan

    “Significant.” So Natural Selection is prescient enough to know what will be socially significant in Western societies in 2016? Then why don’t you explain how a “basic understanding of biology” would lead to this. Explain it, quantitatively, don’t just assert it.
     
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puFJ_hBTplc

    Cartman, what the hell are you talking about?


    Explain it, quantitatively, don’t just assert it.
     
    For completeness sake, the point is that even modest selective pressures can lead to substantial change quantitative traits if sustained over long periods of time – as long as these traits are in any way heritable (and all traits are). The breeder's equation quantifies how fast we can expect such change to take place – that, far shorter than the time human races have been separated. Major cognitive and behavioral differences are a given.

    I'm getting tired of this argument. I sure hope this clears it up for you.

    JayMan writes,

    For completeness sake, the point is that even modest selective pressures can lead to substantial change quantitative traits if sustained over long periods of time – as long as these traits are in any way heritable (and all traits are).

    [my emphasis]

    As another commenter noted, obviously I’m not denying that it can happen.

    The breeder’s equation quantifies how fast we can expect such change to take place – that, far shorter than the time human races have been separated.

    You keep pointing to that equation, but it’s totally irrelevant here. Of course change within a population can take place fast. No one’s denying that. That equation says nothing about whether change did take place fast (or at all), or whether it lead to substantial differences between populations.

    Read More
  83. @Aaron Gross
    First of all, thanks for actually addressing the topic.

    I don't see how you can say that such selection is "not very likely." The post that you yourself link to says, "Nonetheless, uniform selection can’t be ruled out a priori." And keep in mind that we're talking about only one trait, IQ, not all behavioral traits.

    In fact, it's plausible a priori that the selection pressures might have been roughly the same in Europe, Africa, etc. In other words, that the trade-offs between costs and benefits associated with IQ were roughly the same. You can get into this empirically or, if you prefer, with Just So stories about how hunting woolly mammoths requires more intelligence than picking bananas. My point is that this question is not even close to being answered by JayMan's saying, "Breeder's equation! Breeder's equation!"

    Just to clarify this comment I made: When I said “plausible…might,” I meant that the case of no substantial difference can’t be ruled out a priori as implausible. I didn’t mean to suggest that it’s any more likely or even as likely as the alternative.

    Read More
  84. @JayMan

    “Significant.” So Natural Selection is prescient enough to know what will be socially significant in Western societies in 2016? Then why don’t you explain how a “basic understanding of biology” would lead to this. Explain it, quantitatively, don’t just assert it.
     
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puFJ_hBTplc

    Cartman, what the hell are you talking about?


    Explain it, quantitatively, don’t just assert it.
     
    For completeness sake, the point is that even modest selective pressures can lead to substantial change quantitative traits if sustained over long periods of time – as long as these traits are in any way heritable (and all traits are). The breeder's equation quantifies how fast we can expect such change to take place – that, far shorter than the time human races have been separated. Major cognitive and behavioral differences are a given.

    I'm getting tired of this argument. I sure hope this clears it up for you.

    I’m getting tired of this argument.

    Fair enough. I’ve said what I have to say, I’m leaving the last word to you.

    Read More
  85. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Advinesta
    I should have expected Unz's resident chinese nationalist shit troll to pop up sooner or later (and once again, refers to himself in the third person). You aren't going to stop me or anyone else from quoting anything that might call into question the test scores that HBDers accept uncritically, as much as it offends your delicate racial pride. And how you refer to them as "crappy amateur journalist hit pieces"- yeah, one of them has direct references throughout, and the other is of a widely reported near-riot with photos included. Modern chinese students have variously developed a reputation for cheating, whether at home or international students, and there's reams of documentation for this. I am *not* saying the average chinese student cheats, but it's pervasive enough where there's reams of documentation for it. What's truly funny is how much someone questioning the idea the Chinese are the apex of humanity gets to you. And I'm not even saying the chinese are low IQ.

    Here's more on the phenomenon of chinese students cheating- but you'll just probably wave it off as all propaganda:

    http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/28/world/asia/china-exam-cheats/
    https://educationrealist.wordpress.com/2013/10/08/asian-immigrants-and-what-no-one-mentions-aloud/
    https://educationrealist.wordpress.com/2015/01/18/what-you-probably-dont-know-about-the-gaokao/
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-levy/college-applicants-cheat_b_1074544.html
    http://money.cnn.com/2014/07/01/pf/college/chinese-students-cheating/

    I'd appreciate more than your second hand rumors about leaked results in the chinese press about PISA (one of those tests HBDers swear up and down are excellent proxies for IQ) results, and how an even poorer chinese province did far better. But maybe I've just yet to accept the grand reality of chinese superiority, that even in the worst conditions, chinese students do better than Swiss ones*, that would stop from daring to question such a thing. I mean, it sounds really stupid and crazy, but I guess this is to be expected for a member a lower race.

    I have no idea what your second to last paragraph is really about, or who Tom Loveless and Andreas Schleicher are.

    *So what does that mean for their real IQ's? If they do even better, are their actual IQ's, excluding those factors, 110+ or something? Or do you also believe poor schooling, disease, malnutrition etc. etc. have marginal effects on IQ?

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/08/why-winners-become-cheaters/

    Schurr: The more people win, the more likely they are to cheat; and the more they cheat, the more likely they are to win.

    Get use to it.

    Read More
  86. @Aaron Gross
    This was relevant to the topic. No one says that population averages are precisely equal. What I'm saying is that you claim differences, but have nothing to say about the magnitude (or direction) of those differences.

    The whole point of this controversy is whether there's a substantial difference in "natural" intelligence and, if so, the sign of that difference (whether whites are "naturally" more intelligent than blacks or vice versa). You won't, and presumably can't, address those questions.

    This was relevant to the topic. No one says that population averages are precisely equal. What I’m saying is that you claim differences, but have nothing to say about the magnitude (or direction) of those differences.

    Come on Aaron: you ever hear of the expression “grasping at straws?” No, equal selection in all cognitive and behavioral traits is so unlikely it’s not worth considering. And even beyond what we’d expect from theory, there is the fact that we have measurable differences between groups. We do indeed have plenty of data on the size and the magnitude. Hence this whole exercise is might silly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim
    No natural phenomenon produces a simple pattern of exact equality. Looking at say mountain ranges across the world average attitude varies substantially although the different ranges are all formed by roughly similar processes of tectonic uplift and erosian. No two mountain ranges are any thing like identical.

    No biological trait works like equalitarians claim intelligence works. Average height of human populations varies over about four standard deviations somewhat similar to the variation in meeasured IQ.
  87. @Aaron Gross
    That's nonsense. You yourself just agreed that it's not necessarily the case! That is, that the environments might select for roughly equal average intelligence.

    First, forgive me the layman’s language. I hope, however, that the gist of what I want to say will be understandable.

    Yes, there is possibility that environments have exactly same pressures for intelligence. But this is very, very unlikely.

    The fact that hypothetically two environment have the same intellectual demands does not mean they would select for the same intelligence. Intelligence is costly (in terms of energy), and the energy available was limited. You have to optimize, you have to find a balance between e.g. your immune system, brain, muscles and so on.

    Therefore, if two environments are exactly the same in all pressures EXCEPT JUST ONE, and not tied to the intelligence at all, then this one difference would still mean that selection pressures for intelligence will be different. What you are postulating is either all environments have exactly the same all selection pressures, or that differences in pressures balance each other out. This is unlikely.

    Hence, the prior should be that there are genetically motivated differences in intelligence averages between populations.

    I agree that you cannot a priori conclude that those differences will be large or at least socially meaningful. However, seeing that we observe large differences, and that our prior is that there should be genetically-based differences, it’s hard to see how we cannot take the fact that observable large differences are at least in part gene-based as the default position.

    Read More
  88. @Advinesta
    For someone who begins your post about how Chisala has been "producing pile after pile of nonsense for quite some time", with you "refuting his rubbish", because "he was full of baloney", and were mostly banned "for your signature flair. :D"*, is a "bullshit artist etc." you're not entirely on solid ground with a good part of your post.

    To wit, you quote that 2007 paper that's waved around as how timeless racial differences are, and affirm that with Steve Sailer on African history. Sailer acts like urbanization was marginal in SS africa, and this was because of things like large game preventing humans from settling down (such as the continent-wide threat of elephants eating food crops) and the threat of disease.

    It's too bad Sailer has a sophomore understanding of african history, but that's remarkably common among HBDers. Sailer from the outset is wrong to claim urbanization was uncommon in SS africa, that they "largely remained small villagers scratching a living from the ground" or "there simply weren’t many cities south of Timbuktu." Starting with this (ignore the goofy title), it's clear urbanization has long existed in West African, even before Islam, and many of the earliest urban centers have basically been buried/fallen apart: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9LkpJdll9A

    Then there's the muslim successors of these early urban centers, such as Ghana/Mali/Songhai, and while it's common to wave them off as being the products of arabs/berbers, the few racially mixed groups that exist in inland west africa have long been nomadic, and some, like the Tuareg, are few in number even now.

    Then there are the cities that existed in coastal west africa (which was overwhelmingly untouched by Islam), particularly the ones in southern Nigeria, which produced advanced art to boot: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ife
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benin_Bronzes

    This isn't even going into the millions and millions of people who were transported and died in the atlantic slave trade- where would those people have come from if there weren't heavy urban centers? Most african slaves came from southwest africa, particularly Angola, which also had it's share of cities and advanced cultures, that also took readily to European influence:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Kongo
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade#Slave_market_regions_and_participation

    Sailer however isn't entirely incorrect to note the absence of large ruins in SS africa, or how large parts of SS africa never had extensive urbanization or highly developed cultures. I can think of a variety of general reasons for this (though not discounting genes):

    -Most modern SS africans derive from a population centered in the sahara about 10,000 years ago. Before then, SS africa was very sparsely populated, and by african groups physically distinct from typical black africans. Around this time, these africans developed agriculture, in varying degrees indigenously and from the outside (and eventually, iron smelting, though this seems to be completely indigenous). They gradually spread southwards, remained predominantly in West Africa, and did not expand outward until the bantu expansion, which began 4,000 years ago, and was technically still occurring into modern times, what with conflicts between the Dutch and the natives in South Africa. Huge swaths of africa remained filled with scattered, stone age hunter-gatherers, and were in historic times populated quite recently by bantu groups, which brought with them agriculture and iron smelting. The fact so much of africa prior to colonialism remained so undeveloped is in large part due to how recent the arrivals were. In west africa, where human habitation was more advanced culture is much older, we see the most developed cultures, ruins etc. And even then, large parts of west africa were very sparsely inhabited until modern times, such as Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone.

    -While urbanization is old and has been extensive in west africa, perhaps the main reason monumental ruins, architecture etc. have minimal is because west africa is largely flatland with few major stone deposits. Most buildings in west africa, whether in the sahel or coastal nigeria, have been made of mud, often mud bulk. Where stone deposits have been more extensive, they've been widely used, like in the Dogon region of Mali. But monumental architecture hasn't been absent- muslim explorers and such often noted large palaces and structures in medieval west africa, and european explorers long noted Benin City and it's palace. Their predominant modern absence seems to be due to the fact many of them were destroyed or fell into disrepair. After the Songhai empire was conquered by the Saadi dynasty, the Moroccans razed many major cities, and relinquished control of the region, which caused it to splinter into many smaller kingdoms, and began a centuries long period of decline that led to the region becoming a backwater. Europeans also destroyed cities like Benin and pre-colonial Kumasi (which also had fairly impressive architecture, of which there are many photos to attest.)

    Anyway, you follow up with this gem:

    "By contrast, as we know, there was plenty of development in East Asia and Europe, especially Northwestern Europe:"

    Well, if you were talking about northwestern europe awhile after roman influence, then sure. Because there were next to no cities before that time, and while there were some pretty remarkable astronomical achievements, they weren't typical, and they by the standards of most the world back then didn't have plenty of development, and wouldn't begin to really shine until some centuries later. That's what your map shows, but isn't it a bit dishonest to act like this map is worth reference for a paper that talks about technological development as far back as 1,000 BC? Japan also didn't begin urbanization until around a similar time, and definitely far later than China and Korea.

    But yeah, they sure line up with their prosperity millenia later, don't they?

    "As Staffan put it, “we can’t adjust for their entire history.”"

    This led me to a comment from someone who claims Russians created communism. But Chisala is the bullshit artist?

    Now, I'm not saying any of the examples of african history prove parity with eurasians, or exempt genetics, or that the behavioral demands in those pre-modern settings are the same as now (but that could apply to anywhere), but it would help to not regurgitate Sailer's goofy theories on Africa and affirm that HBDers have next to no idea about africa's history.

    *Is the "mostly" an admission you can be annoying?

    Sorry you have it wrong. African nationalists have confused you with their habit for cultural appropriation. For example, the Empire of Ghana was located in modern day Morocco.

    You can see a map which shows pretty much every organised African society here, and what meets the standard of ‘organised’ would not qualify were it found in Europe.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_empires

    You do make a good point about much of Africa being newly populated by Bantu peoples. Then again the fact that it took Europeans less time to colonise North and South America than it took the Bantu to colonise South Africa needs explanation…indeed it took Euros less time to get to South Africa than it took Bantus, which is crazy.

    I suspect that there are myriad explanations for all of this but you laugh at Sailer at your peril.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Advinesta
    You are confusing the label of "EMPIRE OF GHANA" on that map with it's exact location. The name is not where Ghana was located, it's the orange, colored area with Kumbi Saleh and Jenne-Jeno. Notice how there's no colored area where "EMPIRE OF GHANA" is. Or how that area is in a region of the sahara that's always been barely populated (not Morocco, or anywhere you could expect an empire to be centered.)

    You're the one who has it wrong, because you follow the kneejerk reaction of excusing achievements in SS africa on the part of berbers/arabs to such an extent you'll actually claim old Ghana was in Morocco.

    What do you even know about those societies shown on that map? They ranged from large tribal polities to indigenous states with advanced art, to empires with many cities, written language and literature, and extensive trade with the rest of the world. You can find more on that page you linked, but I guess it's easier to wave it all of as afrocentrism.

    Europeans were able to colonize the Americas so easily because of disease that wiped out many natives and more advanced technology (and no, I don't think they had that for reasons as narrow as you think.) It also took modern humans awhile to fully populate Eurasia, an incredible amount of time to even reach the Americas, and many pacific islands weren't even populated until the middle ages.

    We know there were humans in south africa tens of thousands years ago, and they were certainly much more primitive than the bantus. Populations migrate for a myriad number of reasons, and africa's population history is very old and complex.

    I don't laugh at Sailer, but I will criticize him when he's wrong, and I will criticize Jayman for relying on his ill-informed to outright dumb theories on africa's underdevelopment (like that bit about elephants.)
    , @matt

    Sorry you have it wrong. African nationalists have confused you with their habit for cultural appropriation. For example, the Empire of Ghana was located in modern day Morocco.

     

    buddy,

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghana_Empire#/media/File:Ghana_empire_map.png
  89. @This Is Our Home
    Sorry you have it wrong. African nationalists have confused you with their habit for cultural appropriation. For example, the Empire of Ghana was located in modern day Morocco.

    You can see a map which shows pretty much every organised African society here, and what meets the standard of 'organised' would not qualify were it found in Europe.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_empires

    You do make a good point about much of Africa being newly populated by Bantu peoples. Then again the fact that it took Europeans less time to colonise North and South America than it took the Bantu to colonise South Africa needs explanation...indeed it took Euros less time to get to South Africa than it took Bantus, which is crazy.

    I suspect that there are myriad explanations for all of this but you laugh at Sailer at your peril.

    You are confusing the label of “EMPIRE OF GHANA” on that map with it’s exact location. The name is not where Ghana was located, it’s the orange, colored area with Kumbi Saleh and Jenne-Jeno. Notice how there’s no colored area where “EMPIRE OF GHANA” is. Or how that area is in a region of the sahara that’s always been barely populated (not Morocco, or anywhere you could expect an empire to be centered.)

    You’re the one who has it wrong, because you follow the kneejerk reaction of excusing achievements in SS africa on the part of berbers/arabs to such an extent you’ll actually claim old Ghana was in Morocco.

    What do you even know about those societies shown on that map? They ranged from large tribal polities to indigenous states with advanced art, to empires with many cities, written language and literature, and extensive trade with the rest of the world. You can find more on that page you linked, but I guess it’s easier to wave it all of as afrocentrism.

    Europeans were able to colonize the Americas so easily because of disease that wiped out many natives and more advanced technology (and no, I don’t think they had that for reasons as narrow as you think.) It also took modern humans awhile to fully populate Eurasia, an incredible amount of time to even reach the Americas, and many pacific islands weren’t even populated until the middle ages.

    We know there were humans in south africa tens of thousands years ago, and they were certainly much more primitive than the bantus. Populations migrate for a myriad number of reasons, and africa’s population history is very old and complex.

    I don’t laugh at Sailer, but I will criticize him when he’s wrong, and I will criticize Jayman for relying on his ill-informed to outright dumb theories on africa’s underdevelopment (like that bit about elephants.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @This Is Our Home

    You’re the one who has it wrong, because you follow the kneejerk reaction of excusing achievements in SS africa on the part of berbers/arabs to such an extent you’ll actually claim old Ghana was in Morocco.
     
    I was dumb but Morocco/Mauretania, who really cares? Morocco south of the Atlas mountains blends seemlessly into that whole area, but that area certainly does not blend seemlessly into West Africa.

    Other than that, your mentions of 'advanced art' and 'empires' strike me as an exercise in lacking a sense of scale. I want you to be right by the way, but I cannot help but notice that just little Ancient Athens dwarfs the combined achievements of SS Africa, even if the whole history of that area is taken account of!

    , @Advinesta
    If you go south of the atlas mountains, you'll end up outside of Morocco's borders and into the sahara, and you'll still be a long ways off from medieval Ghana. You're really reaching here.

    You want me to be right, and you can find out I am if you look at the wikipedia articles you've linked and I have. And yeah, you could probably say that about Athens, but you could also say the same about other huge places at various points in history. Again, you're really reaching.

    I'm pretty sure medieval Ghana's most populated parts were in the southern and eastern regions (it's capital was in the south), and not the parts that went into Mauritania. Ghana also has a higher HDI, GDP etc. than Mauritania, so I don't buy your claims it's better off. Mauritania is a total backwater, with only a few million people, and was mostly nomadic until recently. It's also mostly arab/berber and mixed, and somehow has conditions worse than much of SS africa.
  90. @JayMan
    OK, how about:

    1. Where does culture come from?
    2. No, You Don't Have Free Will, and This Is Why

    Jayman, I hope I’ve done a decent due diligence, but I cannot find anything in your texts on free will about David Deutsch’s view about how the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Physics rescues free will (sort of). Especially in ch 11 & 13 of his The Fabric of Reality. A much better condensation of the argument than I could manage is at https://stephenwhitt.wordpress.com/2011/12/17/the-fabric-of-reality-and-free-will/ , but it glosses over a great deal that TFoR treats in detail.

    Your statement that emergent properties “are fully dependent on the properties of those sub-units” is one that I would agree with except perhaps with “fully.” I agree with all due reductiveness, but this seems to me to imply more than that, that emergent properties are less fundamental than more reduced ones. Again, I think you would be interested in what Deutsch has to say about that in ch 1 of TFoR.

    My apologies for pointing to chapters instead of presenting the arguments. I never do that, *except regarding Deutsch*. If you have read TFofR, you’ll understand. If not…

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    Jayman, I hope I’ve done a decent due diligence, but I cannot find anything in your texts on free will about David Deutsch’s view about how the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Physics rescues free will
     
    That's because it doesn't

    ” I agree with all due reductiveness, but this seems to me to imply more than that, that emergent properties are less fundamental than more reduced ones.
     
    So is the case. Well, it's important to keep in mind what emergent properties are:

    https://twitter.com/joe_atikian/status/684511779297345537

    All they are sharp peaks in the effect space of configurations of matter.

  91. @Advinesta
    I should have expected Unz's resident chinese nationalist shit troll to pop up sooner or later (and once again, refers to himself in the third person). You aren't going to stop me or anyone else from quoting anything that might call into question the test scores that HBDers accept uncritically, as much as it offends your delicate racial pride. And how you refer to them as "crappy amateur journalist hit pieces"- yeah, one of them has direct references throughout, and the other is of a widely reported near-riot with photos included. Modern chinese students have variously developed a reputation for cheating, whether at home or international students, and there's reams of documentation for this. I am *not* saying the average chinese student cheats, but it's pervasive enough where there's reams of documentation for it. What's truly funny is how much someone questioning the idea the Chinese are the apex of humanity gets to you. And I'm not even saying the chinese are low IQ.

    Here's more on the phenomenon of chinese students cheating- but you'll just probably wave it off as all propaganda:

    http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/28/world/asia/china-exam-cheats/
    https://educationrealist.wordpress.com/2013/10/08/asian-immigrants-and-what-no-one-mentions-aloud/
    https://educationrealist.wordpress.com/2015/01/18/what-you-probably-dont-know-about-the-gaokao/
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-levy/college-applicants-cheat_b_1074544.html
    http://money.cnn.com/2014/07/01/pf/college/chinese-students-cheating/

    I'd appreciate more than your second hand rumors about leaked results in the chinese press about PISA (one of those tests HBDers swear up and down are excellent proxies for IQ) results, and how an even poorer chinese province did far better. But maybe I've just yet to accept the grand reality of chinese superiority, that even in the worst conditions, chinese students do better than Swiss ones*, that would stop from daring to question such a thing. I mean, it sounds really stupid and crazy, but I guess this is to be expected for a member a lower race.

    I have no idea what your second to last paragraph is really about, or who Tom Loveless and Andreas Schleicher are.

    *So what does that mean for their real IQ's? If they do even better, are their actual IQ's, excluding those factors, 110+ or something? Or do you also believe poor schooling, disease, malnutrition etc. etc. have marginal effects on IQ?

    I should have expected Unz’s resident chinese nationalist shit troll to pop up sooner or later (and once again, refers to himself in the third person).

    Congrats! That’s about the only smart sentence out of you in this section that seems to reflect 100 IQ. ROFL

    You aren’t going to stop me or anyone else from quoting anything that might call into question the test scores that HBDers accept uncritically, as much as it offends your delicate racial pride.

    The more you go down this line of sensational hit pieces of so-called “journalist evidences” out of MSM good N old CNN-Cartel (CNN, BBC, Money, WSJ, oh yeah hufflingtonpost, what a treat! LOL… and some politically-oriented “educational” activist blogs) , the stupider you sound when the real results come in. Why the heck Panda gonna stop you? Pls go ahead quoting full speed. ROFL

    Here’s more on the phenomenon of chinese students cheating- but you’ll just probably wave it off as all propaganda:

    http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/28/world/asia/china-exam-cheats/

    https://educationrealist.wordpress.com/2013/10/08/asian-immigrants-and-what-no-one-mentions-aloud/

    https://educationrealist.wordpress.com/2015/01/18/what-you-probably-dont-know-about-the-gaokao/

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-levy/college-applicants-cheat_b_1074544.html

    http://money.cnn.com/2014/07/01/pf/college/chinese-students-cheating/

    Here we go… LOL. You’re soooo patheticly predictable.

    I’d appreciate more than your second hand rumors about leaked results in the chinese press about PISA (one of those tests HBDers swear up and down are excellent proxies for IQ) results, and how an even poorer chinese province did far better.

    Panda didn’t use “far”. You did. But actually it could well be “far”.

    To satisfy your curioisity. Zhejiang province (population: 55 mio) beat Shanghai in 2012 PISA:

    Zhejiang’s scores were leaked in a tiny dark corner of a tiny local newspaper –

    Zhejiang’s Science 567 (No.2 in the world, 8 points below Shanghai), Reading 525 ( No.7 in the world, 1 point behind Singapore), Maths 598 (No.2 in the world, only 2 points behind Shanghai).

    Why Zhejiang actually beat Shanghai?

    Zhejiang doesn’t have “hukou cheat method” (acoording to Tom Loveless) of Shanghai – so the entire fairytale that Tom Loveless bult his “rebuttals”on goes to the dogshit after Padna pointed this out in his Harvard column. OECD PISA 2012 didn’t randomly choose Zhejiang’s scores (as they did with most others), but deliberately select 80% score samples from the poorest rural areas of Zhejiang (imbedded in the tiny footnote of PISA release). On top of that, ALL the elite schools – provincial and city heavyweights – in Zhejiang’s cities didn’t participate PISA 2012 at all. This means Zhejiang beat Shanghai in 2012, easily, which is no surprise to any Chinese student cuz Zhejiang, and acoule of other bigger sized provinces such as Jiangsu, Shangdong, etc. always beat Shanghai.

    Now you can hang your CNN hit piece “journalist cartel” on the nearest lamp posts. ROFL

    I have no idea what your second to last paragraph is really about, or who Tom Loveless and Andreas Schleicher are.

    So you have no idea? Seriously? ROFL. Tom Loveless’ series from Harvard were the very first loose cannons (released on the 2nd day of OECD PISA news) to start the whole sour-grape thing, which were then followed up by the tsunami waves of “Chinese cheating, and the Chinese are cheaters” by the subordinate lackey CNN&Associates to reach the worldwide sheeple masses, you included, weeks and months later. The central piece of Tom Loveless rests on a widespread junvenile wild assumption that rural Chinese have lower IQ than urban Chinese and Shanghai have strict “hukou system”, before it was casually slapped into the Dark Age by Panda @War with ease under his Harvard column, of course. ROFL

    And you, you talk about PISA with a straight and blue face without knowing whom Tom Loveless and Andreas Schleicher are? ROFL. It’s like talking about WWII without knowing whom was Winston Churchil or commenting here without knowing who the heck is Ron Unz… Are you all right?

    …second thought, then of course you’ve never heard of them! Panda would venture that intelletual giants such as CNN and Hufflington alike fit you lot much handier, don’t they? LOL

    Read More
    • Replies: @Advinesta
    "Zhejiang’s scores were leaked in a tiny dark corner of a tiny local newspaper –"

    Wow, that sounds reliable!

    But correct me if I'm wrong- your argument is that jealous laowai tried to tear down chinese performance in the OECD PISA by focusing on the "houkou cheat method", but it turns out that the poorer Zhejiang province lacked this method altogether, and to top it off, the scores were not only deliberately selected from the poorest areas (in contrast to random samples with most others), but none of the elite schools in Zhejiang province participated, which comes as no surprise to any chinese student about this breathtaking superiority.

    And since Zhejian province is a coastal, more developed urban province, who knows what super-geniuses we could readily find in the poorer, inland provinces?

    And to really top it off, everything we've seen of claims cheating on the part of chinese in the past few years- whether it's tests and academic performance unrelated to the PISA, or university performance from chinese students in the USA (which is what most of my links dealt with)- are all just propaganda meant to cover up the incredible truth of overwhelming chinese genetic superiority.

    Nevermind the astonishing levels and degrees of corruption, social anomie, disregard of basic etiquette and norms, the poor value on human (and often times animal) life, the intellectual property theft, fraud etc. etc. that have permeated all levels of Chinese society for decades, but when it comes to academic performance, there's next to none of that.

    Those are all really lofty claims, so why don't you actually bring forth cited evidence (especially what Tom Loveless supposedly covered up) to back any of this up? Especially how all of these claims of chinese students cheating all derive from this?

    There is nothing wild, juvenile etc. about the idea rural chinese have lower IQ's than urban ones. Given the poorer education, living conditions, higher disease burdern etc., along with the brain drain and the tendency for urban populations to have higher IQ's, there is absolutely nothing strange about assuming rural chinese IQ is lower, and much of this differential would be environmental. But for someone who wants the Chinese to be the peak of humanity, I guess it would come across as that.

    What is really strange is this HBD tendency to act as if and try so hard to prove tiny diaspora/immigrant populations are perfectly representative of their home countries, including the mass of people in China, to the most third world, inland province. And especially that bizarre claim from the paper Jayman cited, and your delusions of sky-high chinese IQ.

    No, I've really never heard of them until this discussion. Out of all of the times I've seen the PISA come up in HBD discussions, I've never once seen their names come up. Maybe I could really be in the dark (because knowing the name of the academic coordinator of a test in these discussions is really important, apparently), but the one telling me this and how detached from reality this makes me is an autistic chinese supremacist (who also seems to have a personal grudge against Loveless).

  92. @Brian
    Jayman, I hope I've done a decent due diligence, but I cannot find anything in your texts on free will about David Deutsch's view about how the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Physics rescues free will (sort of). Especially in ch 11 & 13 of his The Fabric of Reality. A much better condensation of the argument than I could manage is at https://stephenwhitt.wordpress.com/2011/12/17/the-fabric-of-reality-and-free-will/ , but it glosses over a great deal that TFoR treats in detail.

    Your statement that emergent properties "are fully dependent on the properties of those sub-units" is one that I would agree with except perhaps with "fully." I agree with all due reductiveness, but this seems to me to imply more than that, that emergent properties are less fundamental than more reduced ones. Again, I think you would be interested in what Deutsch has to say about that in ch 1 of TFoR.

    My apologies for pointing to chapters instead of presenting the arguments. I never do that, *except regarding Deutsch*. If you have read TFofR, you'll understand. If not...

    Jayman, I hope I’ve done a decent due diligence, but I cannot find anything in your texts on free will about David Deutsch’s view about how the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Physics rescues free will

    That’s because it doesn’t

    ” I agree with all due reductiveness, but this seems to me to imply more than that, that emergent properties are less fundamental than more reduced ones.

    So is the case. Well, it’s important to keep in mind what emergent properties are:

    All they are sharp peaks in the effect space of configurations of matter.

    Read More
  93. @PandaAtWar


    I should have expected Unz’s resident chinese nationalist shit troll to pop up sooner or later (and once again, refers to himself in the third person).

     

    Congrats! That's about the only smart sentence out of you in this section that seems to reflect 100 IQ. ROFL

    You aren’t going to stop me or anyone else from quoting anything that might call into question the test scores that HBDers accept uncritically, as much as it offends your delicate racial pride.
     
    The more you go down this line of sensational hit pieces of so-called "journalist evidences" out of MSM good N old CNN-Cartel (CNN, BBC, Money, WSJ, oh yeah hufflingtonpost, what a treat! LOL... and some politically-oriented "educational" activist blogs) , the stupider you sound when the real results come in. Why the heck Panda gonna stop you? Pls go ahead quoting full speed. ROFL

    Here’s more on the phenomenon of chinese students cheating- but you’ll just probably wave it off as all propaganda:

    http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/28/world/asia/china-exam-cheats/

    https://educationrealist.wordpress.com/2013/10/08/asian-immigrants-and-what-no-one-mentions-aloud/

    https://educationrealist.wordpress.com/2015/01/18/what-you-probably-dont-know-about-the-gaokao/

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-levy/college-applicants-cheat_b_1074544.html

    http://money.cnn.com/2014/07/01/pf/college/chinese-students-cheating/
     
    Here we go... LOL. You're soooo patheticly predictable.

    I’d appreciate more than your second hand rumors about leaked results in the chinese press about PISA (one of those tests HBDers swear up and down are excellent proxies for IQ) results, and how an even poorer chinese province did far better.

     

    Panda didn't use "far". You did. But actually it could well be "far".

    To satisfy your curioisity. Zhejiang province (population: 55 mio) beat Shanghai in 2012 PISA:

    Zhejiang's scores were leaked in a tiny dark corner of a tiny local newspaper -

    Zhejiang’s Science 567 (No.2 in the world, 8 points below Shanghai), Reading 525 ( No.7 in the world, 1 point behind Singapore), Maths 598 (No.2 in the world, only 2 points behind Shanghai).

    Why Zhejiang actually beat Shanghai?

    Zhejiang doesn't have "hukou cheat method" (acoording to Tom Loveless) of Shanghai - so the entire fairytale that Tom Loveless bult his "rebuttals"on goes to the dogshit after Padna pointed this out in his Harvard column. OECD PISA 2012 didn't randomly choose Zhejiang's scores (as they did with most others), but deliberately select 80% score samples from the poorest rural areas of Zhejiang (imbedded in the tiny footnote of PISA release). On top of that, ALL the elite schools - provincial and city heavyweights - in Zhejiang's cities didn't participate PISA 2012 at all. This means Zhejiang beat Shanghai in 2012, easily, which is no surprise to any Chinese student cuz Zhejiang, and acoule of other bigger sized provinces such as Jiangsu, Shangdong, etc. always beat Shanghai.

    Now you can hang your CNN hit piece "journalist cartel" on the nearest lamp posts. ROFL



    I have no idea what your second to last paragraph is really about, or who Tom Loveless and Andreas Schleicher are.
     
    So you have no idea? Seriously? ROFL. Tom Loveless' series from Harvard were the very first loose cannons (released on the 2nd day of OECD PISA news) to start the whole sour-grape thing, which were then followed up by the tsunami waves of "Chinese cheating, and the Chinese are cheaters" by the subordinate lackey CNN&Associates to reach the worldwide sheeple masses, you included, weeks and months later. The central piece of Tom Loveless rests on a widespread junvenile wild assumption that rural Chinese have lower IQ than urban Chinese and Shanghai have strict "hukou system", before it was casually slapped into the Dark Age by Panda @War with ease under his Harvard column, of course. ROFL

    And you, you talk about PISA with a straight and blue face without knowing whom Tom Loveless and Andreas Schleicher are? ROFL. It's like talking about WWII without knowing whom was Winston Churchil or commenting here without knowing who the heck is Ron Unz... Are you all right?

    ...second thought, then of course you've never heard of them! Panda would venture that intelletual giants such as CNN and Hufflington alike fit you lot much handier, don't they? LOL

    “Zhejiang’s scores were leaked in a tiny dark corner of a tiny local newspaper –”

    Wow, that sounds reliable!

    But correct me if I’m wrong- your argument is that jealous laowai tried to tear down chinese performance in the OECD PISA by focusing on the “houkou cheat method”, but it turns out that the poorer Zhejiang province lacked this method altogether, and to top it off, the scores were not only deliberately selected from the poorest areas (in contrast to random samples with most others), but none of the elite schools in Zhejiang province participated, which comes as no surprise to any chinese student about this breathtaking superiority.

    And since Zhejian province is a coastal, more developed urban province, who knows what super-geniuses we could readily find in the poorer, inland provinces?

    And to really top it off, everything we’ve seen of claims cheating on the part of chinese in the past few years- whether it’s tests and academic performance unrelated to the PISA, or university performance from chinese students in the USA (which is what most of my links dealt with)- are all just propaganda meant to cover up the incredible truth of overwhelming chinese genetic superiority.

    Nevermind the astonishing levels and degrees of corruption, social anomie, disregard of basic etiquette and norms, the poor value on human (and often times animal) life, the intellectual property theft, fraud etc. etc. that have permeated all levels of Chinese society for decades, but when it comes to academic performance, there’s next to none of that.

    Those are all really lofty claims, so why don’t you actually bring forth cited evidence (especially what Tom Loveless supposedly covered up) to back any of this up? Especially how all of these claims of chinese students cheating all derive from this?

    There is nothing wild, juvenile etc. about the idea rural chinese have lower IQ’s than urban ones. Given the poorer education, living conditions, higher disease burdern etc., along with the brain drain and the tendency for urban populations to have higher IQ’s, there is absolutely nothing strange about assuming rural chinese IQ is lower, and much of this differential would be environmental. But for someone who wants the Chinese to be the peak of humanity, I guess it would come across as that.

    What is really strange is this HBD tendency to act as if and try so hard to prove tiny diaspora/immigrant populations are perfectly representative of their home countries, including the mass of people in China, to the most third world, inland province. And especially that bizarre claim from the paper Jayman cited, and your delusions of sky-high chinese IQ.

    No, I’ve really never heard of them until this discussion. Out of all of the times I’ve seen the PISA come up in HBD discussions, I’ve never once seen their names come up. Maybe I could really be in the dark (because knowing the name of the academic coordinator of a test in these discussions is really important, apparently), but the one telling me this and how detached from reality this makes me is an autistic chinese supremacist (who also seems to have a personal grudge against Loveless).

    Read More
    • Replies: @PandaAtWar

    Wow, that sounds reliable!

    But correct me if I’m wrong- your argument is that jealous laowai tried to tear down chinese performance in the OECD PISA by focusing on the “houkou cheat method”, but it turns out that the poorer Zhejiang province lacked this method altogether, and to top it off, the scores were not only deliberately selected from the poorest areas (in contrast to random samples with most others), but none of the elite schools in Zhejiang province participated, which comes as no surprise to any chinese student about this breathtaking superiority.
     
    One just can't make those up. Yes, your reading comprehension is correct thus far.


    And since Zhejian province is a coastal, more developed urban province, who knows what super-geniuses we could readily find in the poorer, inland provinces?
     
    No details leaked on others as precise as Zhejiang so far. But Andreas Schleicher claims that even the most deprived/poorest inland areas in China, the performance was up to standard of OECD countries such as France etc.

    Panda would say the similar if take an educated guess :

    1. any inland poor province (with ethnic Han Chinese majority) would rank at least top 25 in the world if standalone in almost all 3 categories of reading, science and maths (maths&science particularly could be within top 20) under normal circumstances, which mean that the students will pay good attentions to PISA exam - because right now, no Chinese stud take PISA seriously since it weights zero in terms of helping their own grades in schools, and the unhumnaly fierce competitions for grades in Chinese schools are like from another universe.

    2. furthermore, if China's 20 or so Han-Chinese-majority provinces, both inland and coastal including HK/Taiwan, take PISA at a standalone basis, they would monopoly PISA's top 20 ranking, except perhaps leaving 2 spots to Singapore and Korea which would stand somewhere outside the top 10. That picture alone of "all Chinese affair" would basically destroy the "game" of PISA as it would become too boring and predictable. What? Finland? ~LoL, it could just forget about top 20 in most cases!

    3. and the picture would look even more dramatic, IF PISA's questions could become drastically more difficult than how they are --- there were much complains in Chinese student blogosphere that PISA 2012 questions were tooo easy - it was equivalent to a sort of "grade inflation"overrall. The distance between China and the rest would have been greater had the questions been designed harder.

    All above are based on the fact that per cap educational spending of any of China's provinces (Shanghai included) stands at a tiny fraction (1/20? ) of that of most OECD competing counterparts in PISA. So basically they were/are not even standing at the same friggin starting line! Imagin what the scores would be if putting them at the same line which means 20X China's current per cap educational spending? And you, and retards such as Tom Loveless, still have face to argue... ROFL

    Cheating? knock it off! ROFL. Yeah, the Han Chinese got high scores on cheating, but how you explain away the other ( and ALL) ethnic Chinese top scorers inside top 5 ranking? HK was cheating? Singapore must be cheating? Taiwan must also be cheating? Even the relatively low IQ Korea and Japan were cheating as well? ROFL. Your, and your CNN & Associates Gangsta's, accusations were just downright retarded by definition, don't you realise it after Panda spells it out for ya?

    Nevermind the astonishing levels and degrees of corruption, social anomie, disregard of basic etiquette and norms, the poor value on human (and often times animal) life, the intellectual property theft, fraud etc. etc. that have permeated all levels of Chinese society for decades, but when it comes to academic performance, there’s next to none of that.
     
    No, it does mind! Imagine what scores would become if China rid off most of those corruption issues one day in the near future? oh my... ROFL

    At least some tiny percentage( not average, mind you genius) of the Chinese students sometimes do try hard to cheat or take a short cut whenever possible to get ahead more efficiently in their own ways. Their glorious stories, like the best thing after sliced bread, have been exaggerated and repeatedly broadcasted by your CNN & trolls for ages as an inferiority sour-grape cure for you sheeples -- "see? even the Chinese are not the gods all the time, a small fraction of them cheat!". ROFL

    In comparison, some of you in the West do cheat as well, let's be honest, but in your own funnier and lower IQ way, and mostly un-reported by your CNN gangsters. LOL, while some others of you just give up cheating all together, not because they are saints but because they are so thouroughly screwed up and give up future anyway, cheat? why bother? ROFL

    "disregard of "? ROFL. Popel with the real intrinsic high value such as Han Chinese wouldn't give 2 figs on what your so-called "basic etiquette and norms", but people like you can't live without it, WHY?

    Say, it's like in a nightclub, where a billinaire dropping by would not give 2 figs on what the rest think or judge his clothing or behaviors as he can just come in rags full of alcohol smell, but his intrinsic value system still makes him get chicks of 10 at ease, while you lot dressing in Armani, soaked in Ralph Lauren perfume, shakening and strutting around like "James Bonds" nearby at the counter end up dropping your draws, swallowing your salivas, watching how the billionaire in rags get the businesss done! --- Because you lot are busy at selling yourselves in entire your slave lives to the highest bidder, to the King, who tells you what are basic etiquette and norms (you gotta thank Queen Victoria who introduced you cutteries, table manners and how to dress barely 2 or 300 years ago after you lot devouring coarse soups and half-rare chicken legs with your bare hands for eons... ROFL) that you and only you must obey, and orders you what to do and not to do to be considered civilised, while the Han Chinese had been that the highest bidder , that King, that billionaire (sometimes in rags) themselves for the most part of the world's recorded history. Yes, that King-like attitude, that racial pride, and that unquestionable intellectual and cultural superiority are just imbedded in their blood stream DNAs. Even under the entreme poor conditions at any lowest point in our history, this beliefe system is rock solid! That's where slaves like Tom Loveless was dead wrong (when he considers the poor Chinese must be having lower IQ and lower test scores than richer Chinese, what a slave mentality!). A dirt-poor Han Chinese peasant living in countryside won't give a damn to your table cuturies, norms & etiquette, as he behaves like a King he've always been, while you are just a slave in Armani suit selling yourselves , a slave mentality nonetheless. That's WHY, honey. LoL

    What is really strange is this HBD tendency to act as if and try so hard to prove tiny diaspora/immigrant populations are perfectly representative of their home countries, including the mass of people in China, to the most third world, inland province. And especially that bizarre claim from the paper Jayman cited, and your delusions of sky-high chinese IQ.
     
    Panda has never claimed (but your CNN gangstas do) that Han Chinese diaspora/immigrant populations are the representative of avg IQ of China. Panda welcomes the day when the true and widespread IQ studies are able to be conducted and published in ALL parts of China, both poor inland and poor coastal areas.

    Panda's "delusion" of super high Han Chinese IQ is backed by arguablelly the single strongest mother evidence in the human evolutionary history: China's land mass ---

    --- the biggest, the juiciest, temperaturally the most confortable, and agriculturally the most productive, 4-season, all-climate landmass in the entire Eurasia (while Anglo-Saxens' extremely invasive culture and their Industry Revolution lottery ticket in the last 200 years got them the new continent of America that is comparable)!

    Panda's "delusion" is that in the full course of history, the highest IQ people/tribes end up with the biggest and the best land mass for the longest time span - ensuring the survival of the strongest, always!

    What's your otherwise low IQ delusion btw? ROFL

    --------------

    To sum up, generally Panda is open to discuss any topic. But 2 things about the Han Chinese are unquestionablely peerless throughout history( you take as given all right?) hence are not open for any serious discussion:

    1. avg test scores. Fuck yeah! ROFL

    2. Chinese cuisines ( the real ones, both fine dining and for the masses) French? What French? LMAO
  94. Jayman:

    One of those key facts is this: There are global differences in brain size. Brain size is certainly related to intelligence, both on the individual level (Pietschnig et al 2015) and (even more so) on the group level

    Did you even study your map? There is no real correlation between brain size and IQ there.

    Secondly, Einstein’s brain was measured at 1230 gms. That is lower than the average for Africa and South/Southeast Asia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    Did you even study your map? There is no real correlation between brain size and IQ there.
     
    I did study the map. The correlation is obvious, even if it is less than perfect.

    Secondly, Einstein’s brain was measured at 1230 gms.
     
    Read Rushton & Jensen 2010 above on that. Again, understand the difference between a 1.0 correlation and a 0.0 correlation. This is the last time I'm going to tell you.
    , @PandaAtWar
    1. Brain size somehow correlating to IQ is almost an evolutionarily intuitive logic.

    2. Studing an individual's brain size alongwith its contents is almost meaningless. The importance of Einstein’s brain has been bloated WAY out of proportion to the degree of being a symbol of political correctness.

  95. @Advinesta
    "As I said a few comments up, IQ testing is a messy business. That said, I go by the PISA scores (and most other IQ tests in China as per Lynn & Vanhanen) until I got more data."

    But there does seem to be good evidence to suggest that those scores are highly accurate, from someone who poured over the references themselves, nevermind test scores out of China in general. And the idea you're pushing forth to begin with is nonsensical, that malnourished, diseased, poorly schooled chinese children could have higher IQ's than Swiss ones (but you seem to question whether iodine deficiency can impact IQ, and allow this as the only potential environmental insult). You don't consider any of that in this post, and reiterate it like it's unquestioned.

    "You do understand averages, right?"

    Yes, I do. I'm not as stupid as you seem to think I am (and I guess nowhere near as stupid as Chisala.) When I said "everywhere have high IQ's", I was talking about averages, and the idea that asians everywhere average high IQ's , not that ALL asians have high IQ's. Because when you say "Poor rural Chinese perform nearly as well in IQ and scholastically as the other East Asian societies do.", from a paper that says they scored slightly higher than the Swiss despite all of their disadvantages, how else is one supposed to take this other than asians uniformly AVERAGE higher IQ's, even in the poorer, more backwards parts of China (especially when even more of China looked like that only a few decades ago)?

    Another quote from that paper:

    "The results are clearest in cases where countries have very different living conditions than other countries in the same world region. China has had far worse living conditions than Japan or South Korea, but average IQ scores that are close to those of its neighbors. Taiwanese born in the early 1940s into poor conditions on the island of Taiwan or in Mainland China recorded an average IQ of 102 (Rodd, 1959)."

    Yep- even in the worst of conditions, that breathtaking asian intellect always shines through!

    Just don't pay attention to things like this:

    http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2015/05/29/u-s-schools-expelled-8000-chinese-students-for-poor-grades-cheating/

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/10132391/Riot-after-Chinese-teachers-try-to-stop-pupils-cheating.html

    Though given that the paper is based on broad test results, I don't think there's anything specifically about rural chinese children- just the state of China as a whole and test results that are supposedly applicable to a country of 1 billion+ people. And then how it goes on to claim things like elite nigerians have IQ's well below those of elite germans (based on a then-unpublished paper), when Chisala has devoted extensive work to showcasing the prowess of elite Nigerians and such, while also never claiming these are perfectly representative... this doesn't seem like a sensible paper to be falling back on.

    See Anatoly Karlin’s discussion of China’s 2009 PISA results.

    http://akarlin.com/2012/08/analysis-of-chinas-pisa-2009-results/

    On average, rural Chinese did well. The hard evidence is both that average IQ in China is somewhat higher than in Northern Europe AND that there is rampant cheating among Chinese. Note that average living standards in China are still below those in Mexico. Moreover, a positive Flynn effect still exists in China whereas it has stopped or become negative in Northern Europe.

    Read More
  96. @Advinesta
    "Zhejiang’s scores were leaked in a tiny dark corner of a tiny local newspaper –"

    Wow, that sounds reliable!

    But correct me if I'm wrong- your argument is that jealous laowai tried to tear down chinese performance in the OECD PISA by focusing on the "houkou cheat method", but it turns out that the poorer Zhejiang province lacked this method altogether, and to top it off, the scores were not only deliberately selected from the poorest areas (in contrast to random samples with most others), but none of the elite schools in Zhejiang province participated, which comes as no surprise to any chinese student about this breathtaking superiority.

    And since Zhejian province is a coastal, more developed urban province, who knows what super-geniuses we could readily find in the poorer, inland provinces?

    And to really top it off, everything we've seen of claims cheating on the part of chinese in the past few years- whether it's tests and academic performance unrelated to the PISA, or university performance from chinese students in the USA (which is what most of my links dealt with)- are all just propaganda meant to cover up the incredible truth of overwhelming chinese genetic superiority.

    Nevermind the astonishing levels and degrees of corruption, social anomie, disregard of basic etiquette and norms, the poor value on human (and often times animal) life, the intellectual property theft, fraud etc. etc. that have permeated all levels of Chinese society for decades, but when it comes to academic performance, there's next to none of that.

    Those are all really lofty claims, so why don't you actually bring forth cited evidence (especially what Tom Loveless supposedly covered up) to back any of this up? Especially how all of these claims of chinese students cheating all derive from this?

    There is nothing wild, juvenile etc. about the idea rural chinese have lower IQ's than urban ones. Given the poorer education, living conditions, higher disease burdern etc., along with the brain drain and the tendency for urban populations to have higher IQ's, there is absolutely nothing strange about assuming rural chinese IQ is lower, and much of this differential would be environmental. But for someone who wants the Chinese to be the peak of humanity, I guess it would come across as that.

    What is really strange is this HBD tendency to act as if and try so hard to prove tiny diaspora/immigrant populations are perfectly representative of their home countries, including the mass of people in China, to the most third world, inland province. And especially that bizarre claim from the paper Jayman cited, and your delusions of sky-high chinese IQ.

    No, I've really never heard of them until this discussion. Out of all of the times I've seen the PISA come up in HBD discussions, I've never once seen their names come up. Maybe I could really be in the dark (because knowing the name of the academic coordinator of a test in these discussions is really important, apparently), but the one telling me this and how detached from reality this makes me is an autistic chinese supremacist (who also seems to have a personal grudge against Loveless).

    Wow, that sounds reliable!

    But correct me if I’m wrong- your argument is that jealous laowai tried to tear down chinese performance in the OECD PISA by focusing on the “houkou cheat method”, but it turns out that the poorer Zhejiang province lacked this method altogether, and to top it off, the scores were not only deliberately selected from the poorest areas (in contrast to random samples with most others), but none of the elite schools in Zhejiang province participated, which comes as no surprise to any chinese student about this breathtaking superiority.

    One just can’t make those up. Yes, your reading comprehension is correct thus far.

    [MORE]

    And since Zhejian province is a coastal, more developed urban province, who knows what super-geniuses we could readily find in the poorer, inland provinces?

    No details leaked on others as precise as Zhejiang so far. But Andreas Schleicher claims that even the most deprived/poorest inland areas in China, the performance was up to standard of OECD countries such as France etc.

    Panda would say the similar if take an educated guess :

    1. any inland poor province (with ethnic Han Chinese majority) would rank at least top 25 in the world if standalone in almost all 3 categories of reading, science and maths (maths&science particularly could be within top 20) under normal circumstances, which mean that the students will pay good attentions to PISA exam – because right now, no Chinese stud take PISA seriously since it weights zero in terms of helping their own grades in schools, and the unhumnaly fierce competitions for grades in Chinese schools are like from another universe.

    2. furthermore, if China’s 20 or so Han-Chinese-majority provinces, both inland and coastal including HK/Taiwan, take PISA at a standalone basis, they would monopoly PISA’s top 20 ranking, except perhaps leaving 2 spots to Singapore and Korea which would stand somewhere outside the top 10. That picture alone of “all Chinese affair” would basically destroy the “game” of PISA as it would become too boring and predictable. What? Finland? ~LoL, it could just forget about top 20 in most cases!

    3. and the picture would look even more dramatic, IF PISA’s questions could become drastically more difficult than how they are — there were much complains in Chinese student blogosphere that PISA 2012 questions were tooo easy – it was equivalent to a sort of “grade inflation”overrall. The distance between China and the rest would have been greater had the questions been designed harder.

    All above are based on the fact that per cap educational spending of any of China’s provinces (Shanghai included) stands at a tiny fraction (1/20? ) of that of most OECD competing counterparts in PISA. So basically they were/are not even standing at the same friggin starting line! Imagin what the scores would be if putting them at the same line which means 20X China’s current per cap educational spending? And you, and retards such as Tom Loveless, still have face to argue… ROFL

    Cheating? knock it off! ROFL. Yeah, the Han Chinese got high scores on cheating, but how you explain away the other ( and ALL) ethnic Chinese top scorers inside top 5 ranking? HK was cheating? Singapore must be cheating? Taiwan must also be cheating? Even the relatively low IQ Korea and Japan were cheating as well? ROFL. Your, and your CNN & Associates Gangsta’s, accusations were just downright retarded by definition, don’t you realise it after Panda spells it out for ya?

    Nevermind the astonishing levels and degrees of corruption, social anomie, disregard of basic etiquette and norms, the poor value on human (and often times animal) life, the intellectual property theft, fraud etc. etc. that have permeated all levels of Chinese society for decades, but when it comes to academic performance, there’s next to none of that.

    No, it does mind! Imagine what scores would become if China rid off most of those corruption issues one day in the near future? oh my… ROFL

    At least some tiny percentage( not average, mind you genius) of the Chinese students sometimes do try hard to cheat or take a short cut whenever possible to get ahead more efficiently in their own ways. Their glorious stories, like the best thing after sliced bread, have been exaggerated and repeatedly broadcasted by your CNN & trolls for ages as an inferiority sour-grape cure for you sheeples — “see? even the Chinese are not the gods all the time, a small fraction of them cheat!”. ROFL

    In comparison, some of you in the West do cheat as well, let’s be honest, but in your own funnier and lower IQ way, and mostly un-reported by your CNN gangsters. LOL, while some others of you just give up cheating all together, not because they are saints but because they are so thouroughly screwed up and give up future anyway, cheat? why bother? ROFL

    “disregard of “? ROFL. Popel with the real intrinsic high value such as Han Chinese wouldn’t give 2 figs on what your so-called “basic etiquette and norms”, but people like you can’t live without it, WHY?

    Say, it’s like in a nightclub, where a billinaire dropping by would not give 2 figs on what the rest think or judge his clothing or behaviors as he can just come in rags full of alcohol smell, but his intrinsic value system still makes him get chicks of 10 at ease, while you lot dressing in Armani, soaked in Ralph Lauren perfume, shakening and strutting around like “James Bonds” nearby at the counter end up dropping your draws, swallowing your salivas, watching how the billionaire in rags get the businesss done! — Because you lot are busy at selling yourselves in entire your slave lives to the highest bidder, to the King, who tells you what are basic etiquette and norms (you gotta thank Queen Victoria who introduced you cutteries, table manners and how to dress barely 2 or 300 years ago after you lot devouring coarse soups and half-rare chicken legs with your bare hands for eons… ROFL) that you and only you must obey, and orders you what to do and not to do to be considered civilised, while the Han Chinese had been that the highest bidder , that King, that billionaire (sometimes in rags) themselves for the most part of the world’s recorded history. Yes, that King-like attitude, that racial pride, and that unquestionable intellectual and cultural superiority are just imbedded in their blood stream DNAs. Even under the entreme poor conditions at any lowest point in our history, this beliefe system is rock solid! That’s where slaves like Tom Loveless was dead wrong (when he considers the poor Chinese must be having lower IQ and lower test scores than richer Chinese, what a slave mentality!). A dirt-poor Han Chinese peasant living in countryside won’t give a damn to your table cuturies, norms & etiquette, as he behaves like a King he’ve always been, while you are just a slave in Armani suit selling yourselves , a slave mentality nonetheless. That’s WHY, honey. LoL

    What is really strange is this HBD tendency to act as if and try so hard to prove tiny diaspora/immigrant populations are perfectly representative of their home countries, including the mass of people in China, to the most third world, inland province. And especially that bizarre claim from the paper Jayman cited, and your delusions of sky-high chinese IQ.

    Panda has never claimed (but your CNN gangstas do) that Han Chinese diaspora/immigrant populations are the representative of avg IQ of China. Panda welcomes the day when the true and widespread IQ studies are able to be conducted and published in ALL parts of China, both poor inland and poor coastal areas.

    Panda’s “delusion” of super high Han Chinese IQ is backed by arguablelly the single strongest mother evidence in the human evolutionary history: China’s land mass —

    — the biggest, the juiciest, temperaturally the most confortable, and agriculturally the most productive, 4-season, all-climate landmass in the entire Eurasia (while Anglo-Saxens’ extremely invasive culture and their Industry Revolution lottery ticket in the last 200 years got them the new continent of America that is comparable)!

    Panda’s “delusion” is that in the full course of history, the highest IQ people/tribes end up with the biggest and the best land mass for the longest time span – ensuring the survival of the strongest, always!

    What’s your otherwise low IQ delusion btw? ROFL

    ————–

    To sum up, generally Panda is open to discuss any topic. But 2 things about the Han Chinese are unquestionablely peerless throughout history( you take as given all right?) hence are not open for any serious discussion:

    1. avg test scores. Fuck yeah! ROFL

    2. Chinese cuisines ( the real ones, both fine dining and for the masses) French? What French? LMAO

    Read More
    • Replies: @Advinesta
    In that entire rambling, narcissistic rant, you didn't bother cite to a single thing, especially what the jealous laowai beast Loveless censored. And yes, you can make a great many things up about academic performace, especially when it's about one of the most corrupt countries on the planet.

    Andreas Schleicer also claims that because the PISA 2012 Technical Background Annex claims theres "no cheating, whatsoever, involved". That's an incredible claim for any test, or that general cheating/cramming/rote memorization can't carry over to a great many tests, and Azerbaijan, a country that's generally done very poorly, also got caught cheating in 2009 on the PISA- but just 3 years later, in a country that's synonymous with corruption, that never happened.

    Yes, no chinese takes PISA seriously, but they still manage to do incredibly, and if they did, they'd be on an entirely different dimension compared to the other subhumans. You do atleast admit the "competitions for grades in chinese school are from another universe", which is a bad thing and would make things like cheating to a sizable degree a sensible option, but you keep telling me this doesn't really matter.

    You also saw "many" comments on chinese blogs about people complaining that the questions were too easy- great evidence. You might think, among other things, these weren't representative, but again, there's that laowai underestimation of chinese supergenius. And man, given that student spent in China is 1/20 that of the highest ranking OECD countries, maybe that average IQ of 130 on the part of China would really shine. How can us retarded, subhuman laoiwai even continue to argue?

    I guess it wasn't apparent enough that when I talk about cheating, I am mainly talkg about mainland chinese. Given that Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan are just about every basic way much better places than mainland china- cleaner, safer, vastly less corrupt etc. etc.- I wouldn't be surprised if cheating was far less of an issue in those places, nevermind how Hong Kong and Singapore are both city-states, the latter of which has very high immigration standards, promotes highly educated couples to have more children etc. Also, they make up a tiny fraction of the global chinese population.

    I also like the dig at the "relatively low IQ Korea and Japan"- they're the same race as you, but like a good east asian racist, you can't help but make a dig at those pathetic japs and gooks.

    And yes, cheating is a pretty big issue in South Korea too. I don't know about Japan, but probably much less.
    Yeah, yeah it does mind. You're actually, honest to god claiming that China is undoubtedly corrupt in every single conceivable fashion, EXCEPT for education, that breathtaking corruption and anomie and disregard of others in basically every facet of life is undeniable in modern China, but when it comes to
    And I won't deny China would be vastly better off if not for those things- in fact, they could potentially be the leading superpower. But the roots of China's dysfunction are deep, and go back up to a few centuries (and in ways even further), and while much of it could be layed at what it's suffered in the last century, China has a long way to go before it ever frees itself of it's pathologies.

    You admit just a "tiny percentage" of chinese students cheat, (and I never claimed the average chinese student cheats, you deranged retard, but I wouldn't be surprised if in some parts of China, it's close to universal) and once again mock the CNN articles , as more jealousy from white subhumans (that have been "repeatedly broadcasted for ages"- I thought all of the claims of chinese students came out only in the past few years and were all thanks to that Dastardly laowai Loveless?), even though many of the articles I've cited are about INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS, and on tests UNRELATED TO THE PISA. Which you have yet to address, and just wave off as more propaganda.

    Of course people in the West cheat- people everywhere do. Just not as much as in mainland China, which goes with the fact the was is by and large a far better place than modern mainland China.

    Then you go into some bizarre, megalomaniacal, supremacist rant about how white subhumans have to be told how to behave by kings, which the Chinese are, who all have intrinsic, unshakeable racial pride, intellect etc., that "slaves" like Loveless (there is no doubt you have a personal grudge against him), and even a dirt-poor Chinese peasant living in the countryside has always behaved far better (even now!) than natural slave whites.

    So uh, I thought you didn't deny that China is a horribly corrupt country now, and that the modern mainland chinese are very dysfunctional (except when it comes to education?) Or did you just see a great opportunity for a psychotic, racist rant?

    I was really debating whether I should continue debating with Panda, but after this, I think I'm done. I'm curious to see what Jayman will say about this maniac and how far off he is from China's average IQ/prowess. Jayman seems to believe China's modern dysfunction is pretty much genetic though, so that could be interesting- an HBDer who takes seriously claims of poor, impoverished, diseased chinese students outscoring swiss ones, and a psychotic chinese supremacist.

    Still, Panda doesn't really strike me as a good example of chinese intellect. He has the beligerence, crassness, disregard of etiquitte, narcissism etc. that modern mainland chinese have gotten a reputation for (but variously sees this as a good thing), but he just doesn't come off as that bright. Things like the poor grammar, bizarre writing style, inability to accept new ideas and more don't give the best impression off a race of polymaths.

    As a few more things with Panda, you've been repeatedly claiming all chinese average very high IQ's. I'm not sure how it's far off to get from you that diaspora chinese are represenative (or is this something about inland chinese being the smarest?), and CNN (you have a grudge against them too clearly) claimed they're represenative. Unless you think the CNN articles all claimed they're all of mediocre/low IQ and only seem smart because of cheating, cramming etc.

    If you really want to see something like that, check out this post, from someone who ultimately alludes to east asians having significantly lower IQ's than whites (which is crazy, but you might find it interesting): http://mpcdot.com/forums/topic/4163-plagiarized-effortpost-on-studyasians/#entry182899

    And really, what do you think the average chinese IQ really is? It's clearly not 100 or even the unbelievable 105-108 that HBDers often trot out. Is it 115? 120? 130? 150? 200? Beyond what any IQ test can measure?

    Finally, your reason for why the chinese have always been supergeniuses is because they've always had the most fertile landmass. Not that this made them smarter, that it introduced conditions that would allow them to enrich themselves, but the very fact they had this to begin with is why they were smarter.
    So chinese supergenius dates even before then? Damn, those ice age climates must have been more demanding than the biggest HBD weirdo ever fathomed! (But I doubt you'd accept siberians and inuits as being smarter than the chinese). And you'd then have to ask about things like the fact the Chinese are in reality a large amalgamation of ethnic groups with mixing dating back millenia, with large amounts of gene flow from southeast asia and elsewhere, that places with large amounts of Chinese admixture (much of southeast asia, including the Philippines) are in general ways even more backwards and unproductive than mainland China etc. But who knows- it could just be be beyond the comprehension of us laowai, simple as that.

    Oh, and european achievement extends well before the settling of the US. Like all the way to ancient Greece. And even in more ancient times, you could look to the renaissance a few centuries before and really throughout the middle ages. And how the US broke off from Britain. And the fact the industrial revolution began in Britain. And that american colonialism was in major ways never that beneficial to European powers. And that places like Germany, even in the modern era, produced immense scientific, cultural etc. achievements even though their colonial empire has been marginal. And that large parts of the US weren't even settled in substantial numbers until quite recently. And the US' achievements have generally been from a few areas. And that European achivement is disproportionately due to a relatively few number of countries.

    For all your trump up the Chinese being ahead because of their territory, don't you think it's kind of strange how for all of it's territory, it's historically large populations and long history and organization and such, the Chinese have been proportionately underperforming? They've been ahead at various points, but when you look at not just Europe, but many other civilizations that have produced remarkable accomplishments, have had generally much smaller populations. And no, I'm really not partial to the ideas of east asians being so uncreative, ultra-conformist, devoid of individuality etc., but if you want to go to this length, I don't think China's historical accomplishment is as impressive in face of it's population size and more.

    Just curious, but what do you think of Charles Murray's "Human Accomplishment?" I think many people misconstrue his work, because it's clearly about just a relatively small number of European countries, who didn't begin to really shine until the past several centuries (though Jayman couldn't help weaseling how northwest europe stacks up in this post) among other things, but I don't think his figures are that far off from reality.

    Oh, and India is a very fertile, comfortable country too- they have a similar population to China, and historically have been highly achieving too. But they're even worse off, and are probably of lower IQ than China, among other things.

    And finally, I love the dig about the "Anglon-Saxon's extremely invasive culture"- because China has never had imperial ambitions, in the past (like Vietnam and much of southeast asia) or even now, or exporting their culture to surrounding regions, or that such a thing is so alien to any nationalist/supremacist maniac. On top of shameless racial supremacy, you couldn't help throw in some time-worn white guilt.
  97. @This Is Our Home
    Sorry you have it wrong. African nationalists have confused you with their habit for cultural appropriation. For example, the Empire of Ghana was located in modern day Morocco.

    You can see a map which shows pretty much every organised African society here, and what meets the standard of 'organised' would not qualify were it found in Europe.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_empires

    You do make a good point about much of Africa being newly populated by Bantu peoples. Then again the fact that it took Europeans less time to colonise North and South America than it took the Bantu to colonise South Africa needs explanation...indeed it took Euros less time to get to South Africa than it took Bantus, which is crazy.

    I suspect that there are myriad explanations for all of this but you laugh at Sailer at your peril.

    Sorry you have it wrong. African nationalists have confused you with their habit for cultural appropriation. For example, the Empire of Ghana was located in modern day Morocco.

    buddy,

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghana_Empire#/media/File:Ghana_empire_map.png

    Read More
    • Replies: @This Is Our Home
    Fair enough, I made a pretty big mistake. Nonetheless, it was still located in where Mauritania and Mali are, and having been to Mauritania, I can safely say that it is a world apart from West African modern-day Ghana.
  98. @Bliss
    Jayman:

    One of those key facts is this: There are global differences in brain size. Brain size is certainly related to intelligence, both on the individual level (Pietschnig et al 2015) and (even more so) on the group level
     
    Did you even study your map? There is no real correlation between brain size and IQ there.

    Secondly, Einstein's brain was measured at 1230 gms. That is lower than the average for Africa and South/Southeast Asia.

    Did you even study your map? There is no real correlation between brain size and IQ there.

    I did study the map. The correlation is obvious, even if it is less than perfect.

    Secondly, Einstein’s brain was measured at 1230 gms.

    Read Rushton & Jensen 2010 above on that. Again, understand the difference between a 1.0 correlation and a 0.0 correlation. This is the last time I’m going to tell you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bliss

    The correlation is obvious, even if it is less than perfect.
     
    According to your map:

    Eskimos et al have the biggest brains. Do they have higher IQ than east asians?

    The japanese have the same size brains as MENAs, mexicans, malays and many SSAs; yet their IQ is from one to two SD higher.

    Africans on average have bigger brains than south asians and indo-chinese (burmese, thai, cambodian, vietnamese, lao). That does not correlate to their respective IQs.

    The southern euros are cranially equal to MENAs etc yet there is 1 SD difference in IQ.

    The british have smaller brains than mainland western europeans yet there is no difference in IQ. Ditto for the japanese vs east asians.

    The uighurs, uzbeks, kyrgyz turks of central asia are equal to germans, scandinavians etc in brain size yet differ substantially in IQ.


    It is obvious that your map does not support your claim.
  99. @matt

    Sorry you have it wrong. African nationalists have confused you with their habit for cultural appropriation. For example, the Empire of Ghana was located in modern day Morocco.

     

    buddy,

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghana_Empire#/media/File:Ghana_empire_map.png

    Fair enough, I made a pretty big mistake. Nonetheless, it was still located in where Mauritania and Mali are, and having been to Mauritania, I can safely say that it is a world apart from West African modern-day Ghana.

    Read More
    • Replies: @matt

    Fair enough, I made a pretty big mistake.
     
    Indeed. I suggest you quit while you're behind.

    Nonetheless, it was still located in where Mauritania and Mali are, and having been to Mauritania, I can safely say that it is a world apart from West African modern-day Ghana
     
    Southeastern Mauritania, and central and southern Mali. Anyway, Advinesta never claimed or implied that the Empire of Ghana was identical to the modern state of Ghana; all he did was argue that it is an error to attribute all of the achievements of the Empire to Caucasian ethnic groups.

    If anyone has mistaken the Ghana Empire for something else, you did when you put it in modern-day Morocco (which, again: lol).
  100. @Advinesta
    You are confusing the label of "EMPIRE OF GHANA" on that map with it's exact location. The name is not where Ghana was located, it's the orange, colored area with Kumbi Saleh and Jenne-Jeno. Notice how there's no colored area where "EMPIRE OF GHANA" is. Or how that area is in a region of the sahara that's always been barely populated (not Morocco, or anywhere you could expect an empire to be centered.)

    You're the one who has it wrong, because you follow the kneejerk reaction of excusing achievements in SS africa on the part of berbers/arabs to such an extent you'll actually claim old Ghana was in Morocco.

    What do you even know about those societies shown on that map? They ranged from large tribal polities to indigenous states with advanced art, to empires with many cities, written language and literature, and extensive trade with the rest of the world. You can find more on that page you linked, but I guess it's easier to wave it all of as afrocentrism.

    Europeans were able to colonize the Americas so easily because of disease that wiped out many natives and more advanced technology (and no, I don't think they had that for reasons as narrow as you think.) It also took modern humans awhile to fully populate Eurasia, an incredible amount of time to even reach the Americas, and many pacific islands weren't even populated until the middle ages.

    We know there were humans in south africa tens of thousands years ago, and they were certainly much more primitive than the bantus. Populations migrate for a myriad number of reasons, and africa's population history is very old and complex.

    I don't laugh at Sailer, but I will criticize him when he's wrong, and I will criticize Jayman for relying on his ill-informed to outright dumb theories on africa's underdevelopment (like that bit about elephants.)

    You’re the one who has it wrong, because you follow the kneejerk reaction of excusing achievements in SS africa on the part of berbers/arabs to such an extent you’ll actually claim old Ghana was in Morocco.

    I was dumb but Morocco/Mauretania, who really cares? Morocco south of the Atlas mountains blends seemlessly into that whole area, but that area certainly does not blend seemlessly into West Africa.

    Other than that, your mentions of ‘advanced art’ and ‘empires’ strike me as an exercise in lacking a sense of scale. I want you to be right by the way, but I cannot help but notice that just little Ancient Athens dwarfs the combined achievements of SS Africa, even if the whole history of that area is taken account of!

    Read More
  101. @Bliss
    Jayman:

    One of those key facts is this: There are global differences in brain size. Brain size is certainly related to intelligence, both on the individual level (Pietschnig et al 2015) and (even more so) on the group level
     
    Did you even study your map? There is no real correlation between brain size and IQ there.

    Secondly, Einstein's brain was measured at 1230 gms. That is lower than the average for Africa and South/Southeast Asia.

    1. Brain size somehow correlating to IQ is almost an evolutionarily intuitive logic.

    2. Studing an individual’s brain size alongwith its contents is almost meaningless. The importance of Einstein’s brain has been bloated WAY out of proportion to the degree of being a symbol of political correctness.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    I haven't read about his brain in a while. Wasn't one of the off things that was found was that Einstein's brain had more gleal (sp?) cells? There has been pretty extensive study on his brain, though the details escape me due to not having read on it in a while.
  102. @This Is Our Home
    Fair enough, I made a pretty big mistake. Nonetheless, it was still located in where Mauritania and Mali are, and having been to Mauritania, I can safely say that it is a world apart from West African modern-day Ghana.

    Fair enough, I made a pretty big mistake.

    Indeed. I suggest you quit while you’re behind.

    Nonetheless, it was still located in where Mauritania and Mali are, and having been to Mauritania, I can safely say that it is a world apart from West African modern-day Ghana

    Southeastern Mauritania, and central and southern Mali. Anyway, Advinesta never claimed or implied that the Empire of Ghana was identical to the modern state of Ghana; all he did was argue that it is an error to attribute all of the achievements of the Empire to Caucasian ethnic groups.

    If anyone has mistaken the Ghana Empire for something else, you did when you put it in modern-day Morocco (which, again: lol).

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    Strictly speaking, the borders of Morocco and that of the Ghana empire did overlap:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almoravid_dynasty

  103. @PandaAtWar
    1. Brain size somehow correlating to IQ is almost an evolutionarily intuitive logic.

    2. Studing an individual's brain size alongwith its contents is almost meaningless. The importance of Einstein’s brain has been bloated WAY out of proportion to the degree of being a symbol of political correctness.

    I haven’t read about his brain in a while. Wasn’t one of the off things that was found was that Einstein’s brain had more gleal (sp?) cells? There has been pretty extensive study on his brain, though the details escape me due to not having read on it in a while.

    Read More
  104. @matt

    Fair enough, I made a pretty big mistake.
     
    Indeed. I suggest you quit while you're behind.

    Nonetheless, it was still located in where Mauritania and Mali are, and having been to Mauritania, I can safely say that it is a world apart from West African modern-day Ghana
     
    Southeastern Mauritania, and central and southern Mali. Anyway, Advinesta never claimed or implied that the Empire of Ghana was identical to the modern state of Ghana; all he did was argue that it is an error to attribute all of the achievements of the Empire to Caucasian ethnic groups.

    If anyone has mistaken the Ghana Empire for something else, you did when you put it in modern-day Morocco (which, again: lol).

    Strictly speaking, the borders of Morocco and that of the Ghana empire did overlap:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almoravid_dynasty

    Read More
    • Replies: @matt
    You're really reaching here. The claim that "This Is Our Home" made was the following:

    the Empire of Ghana was located in modern day Morocco.
     
    (emphasis added)

    He didn't say that it butted up against the Almoravids. He said it was in modern day Morocco, and that's about as wrong as saying that it was in modern-day Ghana.
  105. @JayMan
    Strictly speaking, the borders of Morocco and that of the Ghana empire did overlap:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almoravid_dynasty

    You’re really reaching here. The claim that “This Is Our Home” made was the following:

    the Empire of Ghana was located in modern day Morocco.

    (emphasis added)

    He didn’t say that it butted up against the Almoravids. He said it was in modern day Morocco, and that’s about as wrong as saying that it was in modern-day Ghana.

    Read More
  106. @PandaAtWar

    Wow, that sounds reliable!

    But correct me if I’m wrong- your argument is that jealous laowai tried to tear down chinese performance in the OECD PISA by focusing on the “houkou cheat method”, but it turns out that the poorer Zhejiang province lacked this method altogether, and to top it off, the scores were not only deliberately selected from the poorest areas (in contrast to random samples with most others), but none of the elite schools in Zhejiang province participated, which comes as no surprise to any chinese student about this breathtaking superiority.
     
    One just can't make those up. Yes, your reading comprehension is correct thus far.


    And since Zhejian province is a coastal, more developed urban province, who knows what super-geniuses we could readily find in the poorer, inland provinces?
     
    No details leaked on others as precise as Zhejiang so far. But Andreas Schleicher claims that even the most deprived/poorest inland areas in China, the performance was up to standard of OECD countries such as France etc.

    Panda would say the similar if take an educated guess :

    1. any inland poor province (with ethnic Han Chinese majority) would rank at least top 25 in the world if standalone in almost all 3 categories of reading, science and maths (maths&science particularly could be within top 20) under normal circumstances, which mean that the students will pay good attentions to PISA exam - because right now, no Chinese stud take PISA seriously since it weights zero in terms of helping their own grades in schools, and the unhumnaly fierce competitions for grades in Chinese schools are like from another universe.

    2. furthermore, if China's 20 or so Han-Chinese-majority provinces, both inland and coastal including HK/Taiwan, take PISA at a standalone basis, they would monopoly PISA's top 20 ranking, except perhaps leaving 2 spots to Singapore and Korea which would stand somewhere outside the top 10. That picture alone of "all Chinese affair" would basically destroy the "game" of PISA as it would become too boring and predictable. What? Finland? ~LoL, it could just forget about top 20 in most cases!

    3. and the picture would look even more dramatic, IF PISA's questions could become drastically more difficult than how they are --- there were much complains in Chinese student blogosphere that PISA 2012 questions were tooo easy - it was equivalent to a sort of "grade inflation"overrall. The distance between China and the rest would have been greater had the questions been designed harder.

    All above are based on the fact that per cap educational spending of any of China's provinces (Shanghai included) stands at a tiny fraction (1/20? ) of that of most OECD competing counterparts in PISA. So basically they were/are not even standing at the same friggin starting line! Imagin what the scores would be if putting them at the same line which means 20X China's current per cap educational spending? And you, and retards such as Tom Loveless, still have face to argue... ROFL

    Cheating? knock it off! ROFL. Yeah, the Han Chinese got high scores on cheating, but how you explain away the other ( and ALL) ethnic Chinese top scorers inside top 5 ranking? HK was cheating? Singapore must be cheating? Taiwan must also be cheating? Even the relatively low IQ Korea and Japan were cheating as well? ROFL. Your, and your CNN & Associates Gangsta's, accusations were just downright retarded by definition, don't you realise it after Panda spells it out for ya?

    Nevermind the astonishing levels and degrees of corruption, social anomie, disregard of basic etiquette and norms, the poor value on human (and often times animal) life, the intellectual property theft, fraud etc. etc. that have permeated all levels of Chinese society for decades, but when it comes to academic performance, there’s next to none of that.
     
    No, it does mind! Imagine what scores would become if China rid off most of those corruption issues one day in the near future? oh my... ROFL

    At least some tiny percentage( not average, mind you genius) of the Chinese students sometimes do try hard to cheat or take a short cut whenever possible to get ahead more efficiently in their own ways. Their glorious stories, like the best thing after sliced bread, have been exaggerated and repeatedly broadcasted by your CNN & trolls for ages as an inferiority sour-grape cure for you sheeples -- "see? even the Chinese are not the gods all the time, a small fraction of them cheat!". ROFL

    In comparison, some of you in the West do cheat as well, let's be honest, but in your own funnier and lower IQ way, and mostly un-reported by your CNN gangsters. LOL, while some others of you just give up cheating all together, not because they are saints but because they are so thouroughly screwed up and give up future anyway, cheat? why bother? ROFL

    "disregard of "? ROFL. Popel with the real intrinsic high value such as Han Chinese wouldn't give 2 figs on what your so-called "basic etiquette and norms", but people like you can't live without it, WHY?

    Say, it's like in a nightclub, where a billinaire dropping by would not give 2 figs on what the rest think or judge his clothing or behaviors as he can just come in rags full of alcohol smell, but his intrinsic value system still makes him get chicks of 10 at ease, while you lot dressing in Armani, soaked in Ralph Lauren perfume, shakening and strutting around like "James Bonds" nearby at the counter end up dropping your draws, swallowing your salivas, watching how the billionaire in rags get the businesss done! --- Because you lot are busy at selling yourselves in entire your slave lives to the highest bidder, to the King, who tells you what are basic etiquette and norms (you gotta thank Queen Victoria who introduced you cutteries, table manners and how to dress barely 2 or 300 years ago after you lot devouring coarse soups and half-rare chicken legs with your bare hands for eons... ROFL) that you and only you must obey, and orders you what to do and not to do to be considered civilised, while the Han Chinese had been that the highest bidder , that King, that billionaire (sometimes in rags) themselves for the most part of the world's recorded history. Yes, that King-like attitude, that racial pride, and that unquestionable intellectual and cultural superiority are just imbedded in their blood stream DNAs. Even under the entreme poor conditions at any lowest point in our history, this beliefe system is rock solid! That's where slaves like Tom Loveless was dead wrong (when he considers the poor Chinese must be having lower IQ and lower test scores than richer Chinese, what a slave mentality!). A dirt-poor Han Chinese peasant living in countryside won't give a damn to your table cuturies, norms & etiquette, as he behaves like a King he've always been, while you are just a slave in Armani suit selling yourselves , a slave mentality nonetheless. That's WHY, honey. LoL

    What is really strange is this HBD tendency to act as if and try so hard to prove tiny diaspora/immigrant populations are perfectly representative of their home countries, including the mass of people in China, to the most third world, inland province. And especially that bizarre claim from the paper Jayman cited, and your delusions of sky-high chinese IQ.
     
    Panda has never claimed (but your CNN gangstas do) that Han Chinese diaspora/immigrant populations are the representative of avg IQ of China. Panda welcomes the day when the true and widespread IQ studies are able to be conducted and published in ALL parts of China, both poor inland and poor coastal areas.

    Panda's "delusion" of super high Han Chinese IQ is backed by arguablelly the single strongest mother evidence in the human evolutionary history: China's land mass ---

    --- the biggest, the juiciest, temperaturally the most confortable, and agriculturally the most productive, 4-season, all-climate landmass in the entire Eurasia (while Anglo-Saxens' extremely invasive culture and their Industry Revolution lottery ticket in the last 200 years got them the new continent of America that is comparable)!

    Panda's "delusion" is that in the full course of history, the highest IQ people/tribes end up with the biggest and the best land mass for the longest time span - ensuring the survival of the strongest, always!

    What's your otherwise low IQ delusion btw? ROFL

    --------------

    To sum up, generally Panda is open to discuss any topic. But 2 things about the Han Chinese are unquestionablely peerless throughout history( you take as given all right?) hence are not open for any serious discussion:

    1. avg test scores. Fuck yeah! ROFL

    2. Chinese cuisines ( the real ones, both fine dining and for the masses) French? What French? LMAO

    In that entire rambling, narcissistic rant, you didn’t bother cite to a single thing, especially what the jealous laowai beast Loveless censored. And yes, you can make a great many things up about academic performace, especially when it’s about one of the most corrupt countries on the planet.

    Andreas Schleicer also claims that because the PISA 2012 Technical Background Annex claims theres “no cheating, whatsoever, involved”. That’s an incredible claim for any test, or that general cheating/cramming/rote memorization can’t carry over to a great many tests, and Azerbaijan, a country that’s generally done very poorly, also got caught cheating in 2009 on the PISA- but just 3 years later, in a country that’s synonymous with corruption, that never happened.

    Yes, no chinese takes PISA seriously, but they still manage to do incredibly, and if they did, they’d be on an entirely different dimension compared to the other subhumans. You do atleast admit the “competitions for grades in chinese school are from another universe”, which is a bad thing and would make things like cheating to a sizable degree a sensible option, but you keep telling me this doesn’t really matter.

    You also saw “many” comments on chinese blogs about people complaining that the questions were too easy- great evidence. You might think, among other things, these weren’t representative, but again, there’s that laowai underestimation of chinese supergenius. And man, given that student spent in China is 1/20 that of the highest ranking OECD countries, maybe that average IQ of 130 on the part of China would really shine. How can us retarded, subhuman laoiwai even continue to argue?

    [MORE]

    I guess it wasn’t apparent enough that when I talk about cheating, I am mainly talkg about mainland chinese. Given that Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan are just about every basic way much better places than mainland china- cleaner, safer, vastly less corrupt etc. etc.- I wouldn’t be surprised if cheating was far less of an issue in those places, nevermind how Hong Kong and Singapore are both city-states, the latter of which has very high immigration standards, promotes highly educated couples to have more children etc. Also, they make up a tiny fraction of the global chinese population.

    I also like the dig at the “relatively low IQ Korea and Japan”- they’re the same race as you, but like a good east asian racist, you can’t help but make a dig at those pathetic japs and gooks.

    And yes, cheating is a pretty big issue in South Korea too. I don’t know about Japan, but probably much less.
    Yeah, yeah it does mind. You’re actually, honest to god claiming that China is undoubtedly corrupt in every single conceivable fashion, EXCEPT for education, that breathtaking corruption and anomie and disregard of others in basically every facet of life is undeniable in modern China, but when it comes to
    And I won’t deny China would be vastly better off if not for those things- in fact, they could potentially be the leading superpower. But the roots of China’s dysfunction are deep, and go back up to a few centuries (and in ways even further), and while much of it could be layed at what it’s suffered in the last century, China has a long way to go before it ever frees itself of it’s pathologies.

    You admit just a “tiny percentage” of chinese students cheat, (and I never claimed the average chinese student cheats, you deranged retard, but I wouldn’t be surprised if in some parts of China, it’s close to universal) and once again mock the CNN articles , as more jealousy from white subhumans (that have been “repeatedly broadcasted for ages”- I thought all of the claims of chinese students came out only in the past few years and were all thanks to that Dastardly laowai Loveless?), even though many of the articles I’ve cited are about INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS, and on tests UNRELATED TO THE PISA. Which you have yet to address, and just wave off as more propaganda.

    Of course people in the West cheat- people everywhere do. Just not as much as in mainland China, which goes with the fact the was is by and large a far better place than modern mainland China.

    Then you go into some bizarre, megalomaniacal, supremacist rant about how white subhumans have to be told how to behave by kings, which the Chinese are, who all have intrinsic, unshakeable racial pride, intellect etc., that “slaves” like Loveless (there is no doubt you have a personal grudge against him), and even a dirt-poor Chinese peasant living in the countryside has always behaved far better (even now!) than natural slave whites.

    So uh, I thought you didn’t deny that China is a horribly corrupt country now, and that the modern mainland chinese are very dysfunctional (except when it comes to education?) Or did you just see a great opportunity for a psychotic, racist rant?

    I was really debating whether I should continue debating with Panda, but after this, I think I’m done. I’m curious to see what Jayman will say about this maniac and how far off he is from China’s average IQ/prowess. Jayman seems to believe China’s modern dysfunction is pretty much genetic though, so that could be interesting- an HBDer who takes seriously claims of poor, impoverished, diseased chinese students outscoring swiss ones, and a psychotic chinese supremacist.

    Still, Panda doesn’t really strike me as a good example of chinese intellect. He has the beligerence, crassness, disregard of etiquitte, narcissism etc. that modern mainland chinese have gotten a reputation for (but variously sees this as a good thing), but he just doesn’t come off as that bright. Things like the poor grammar, bizarre writing style, inability to accept new ideas and more don’t give the best impression off a race of polymaths.

    As a few more things with Panda, you’ve been repeatedly claiming all chinese average very high IQ’s. I’m not sure how it’s far off to get from you that diaspora chinese are represenative (or is this something about inland chinese being the smarest?), and CNN (you have a grudge against them too clearly) claimed they’re represenative. Unless you think the CNN articles all claimed they’re all of mediocre/low IQ and only seem smart because of cheating, cramming etc.

    If you really want to see something like that, check out this post, from someone who ultimately alludes to east asians having significantly lower IQ’s than whites (which is crazy, but you might find it interesting): http://mpcdot.com/forums/topic/4163-plagiarized-effortpost-on-studyasians/#entry182899

    And really, what do you think the average chinese IQ really is? It’s clearly not 100 or even the unbelievable 105-108 that HBDers often trot out. Is it 115? 120? 130? 150? 200? Beyond what any IQ test can measure?

    Finally, your reason for why the chinese have always been supergeniuses is because they’ve always had the most fertile landmass. Not that this made them smarter, that it introduced conditions that would allow them to enrich themselves, but the very fact they had this to begin with is why they were smarter.
    So chinese supergenius dates even before then? Damn, those ice age climates must have been more demanding than the biggest HBD weirdo ever fathomed! (But I doubt you’d accept siberians and inuits as being smarter than the chinese). And you’d then have to ask about things like the fact the Chinese are in reality a large amalgamation of ethnic groups with mixing dating back millenia, with large amounts of gene flow from southeast asia and elsewhere, that places with large amounts of Chinese admixture (much of southeast asia, including the Philippines) are in general ways even more backwards and unproductive than mainland China etc. But who knows- it could just be be beyond the comprehension of us laowai, simple as that.

    Oh, and european achievement extends well before the settling of the US. Like all the way to ancient Greece. And even in more ancient times, you could look to the renaissance a few centuries before and really throughout the middle ages. And how the US broke off from Britain. And the fact the industrial revolution began in Britain. And that american colonialism was in major ways never that beneficial to European powers. And that places like Germany, even in the modern era, produced immense scientific, cultural etc. achievements even though their colonial empire has been marginal. And that large parts of the US weren’t even settled in substantial numbers until quite recently. And the US’ achievements have generally been from a few areas. And that European achivement is disproportionately due to a relatively few number of countries.

    For all your trump up the Chinese being ahead because of their territory, don’t you think it’s kind of strange how for all of it’s territory, it’s historically large populations and long history and organization and such, the Chinese have been proportionately underperforming? They’ve been ahead at various points, but when you look at not just Europe, but many other civilizations that have produced remarkable accomplishments, have had generally much smaller populations. And no, I’m really not partial to the ideas of east asians being so uncreative, ultra-conformist, devoid of individuality etc., but if you want to go to this length, I don’t think China’s historical accomplishment is as impressive in face of it’s population size and more.

    Just curious, but what do you think of Charles Murray’s “Human Accomplishment?” I think many people misconstrue his work, because it’s clearly about just a relatively small number of European countries, who didn’t begin to really shine until the past several centuries (though Jayman couldn’t help weaseling how northwest europe stacks up in this post) among other things, but I don’t think his figures are that far off from reality.

    Oh, and India is a very fertile, comfortable country too- they have a similar population to China, and historically have been highly achieving too. But they’re even worse off, and are probably of lower IQ than China, among other things.

    And finally, I love the dig about the “Anglon-Saxon’s extremely invasive culture”- because China has never had imperial ambitions, in the past (like Vietnam and much of southeast asia) or even now, or exporting their culture to surrounding regions, or that such a thing is so alien to any nationalist/supremacist maniac. On top of shameless racial supremacy, you couldn’t help throw in some time-worn white guilt.

    Read More
    • Replies: @PandaAtWar
    So you try to overwhelm Panda with a sea of gibberish using your much less valuable evening hours? ROFL. Now Panda gived you a sea of wisdom! LOL

    Panda coming back to you in length is in the spirit to take the opportunity reaching wider audiences using your common MSM low IQ hit piece taking points, apart from giving you a competitive and free education in this area- please don't take it personally, Panda has no intention at all to disrespect you as a person, but just being too polite to miss this chance to greatly enhance your knowledge and intellectual enlightenment. Saluting Panda for the very precious time & effort input or not is not important though:

    In that entire rambling, narcissistic rant, you didn’t bother cite to a single thing, especially what the jealous laowai beast Loveless censored. And yes, you can make a great many things up about academic performace, especially when it’s about one of the most corrupt countries on the planet.
     
    That's not true. Panda cited Panda a lot. Most of the CNN-cartel "journalist" trolls you cited could not intellectually count up to 20 without taking off their socks while in schools - and many still can't, while being busying at regurgitating their politically-oriented editorial lines in the desperate hope to keep their pathetically low-paying jobs to foot their monthly household bills. Morally and intellectually speaking most of them are not fit to hold the suitcase of Panda's secretary, to be honest. For your own good, next time you want to cite sth shining, go ahead citing Panda.

    On test scores , China never cheats - 1 of 2 Panda points that is closed for discussion. Zhejiang's scores were communicated to them by OECD. All the scores of 12 provinces of China currently sit at archive of OECD PISA in Paris, albeit not being publicly released yet. So you are running a full risk of being ridiculed by your own ridiculous accusation. LoL

    Andreas Schleicer also claims that because the PISA 2012 Technical Background Annex claims theres “no cheating, whatsoever, involved”. That’s an incredible claim for any test, or that general cheating/cramming/rote memorization can’t carry over to a great many tests, and Azerbaijan, a country that’s generally done very poorly, also got caught cheating in 2009 on the PISA- but just 3 years later, in a country that’s synonymous with corruption, that never happened.

     

    Panda trusts Andreas´s claim way more than you (and Loveless as well for that matter) as he and his armies of OECD PISA colleagues have all the factual test backups in their drawers, you not, sorry pal.

    Yes, no chinese takes PISA seriously, but they still manage to do incredibly, and if they did, they’d be on an entirely different dimension compared to the other subhumans.

    Yes, Panda doesn’t take breakfast seriously, but Panda still manage to eat an incredible full course of it every morning. And George Clooney doesn’t take ladies seriously, but darn it, he still manages to have a lot at flip of fingers. What’s your friggin point? ROFL

    And pls, stop having so much inferiority complex keep addressing yourself `subman`. Panda has not called you so. You do it to yourself.

    You do atleast admit the “competitions for grades in chinese school are from another universe”, which is a bad thing and would make things like cheating to a sizable degree a sensible option, but you keep telling me this doesn’t really matter.
     
    Panda tells you again: it doesn´t matter. No matter what and when, cheating is inside ALL human societies and all walks of life. But % are small which doesn´t affect the average (hello, kitty?!) too much. On top of that, in any very competitive environment, more often than not the top guys have more incentive to cheat than less smart guys, rather than the other way around, for a natural reason of getting further ahead. So the cheating itself is not a sufficient proof, as it happens often, that the cheating guy is not relatively more capable than others even without cheating. Such examples have been abundant in all walks of life since eons :

    president-to-be Obama had much stronger incentives to cheat, as he did, on his uni grades than a small time county chief-to-be...

    billionaire Donald Trump has - had much stronger incentives to cheat, as he did/is doing, on his tax issues, moral issues etc. than an average salaried construction worker...

    Wall Street-City of London top bankers elite traders have much stronger incentives to cheat, as they did/are doing, on libor rate fixings, rating mythologies, economy outlook etc a shit load of youknowhat than a high-school dropout bank cashier at the front desk...

    Multiple true championship holders like Marion Jones, Justin Gatlin, Ben Johnson etc had much stronger incentives to cheat, as they did, than a mediocre runner such as Panda who can not even reach the school sport meeting final, let alone on the world stage...

    etc etc use your imagination...

    However, their cheating itself is not a sufficient accusation evidence that those guys are intellectually -professionally less capable than their counterparts in their corresponding fields, as you, and your low IQ CNN cartel hit campaign gangs, insinuate to be all the time. Is that clear enough, chief?


    And man, given that student spent in China is 1/20 that of the highest ranking OECD countries, maybe that average IQ of 130 on the part of China would really shine. How can us retarded, subhuman laoiwai even continue to argue?
     
    Panda didn´t claim 130, you did.


    And again, rid off your inferiority complex and stop calling yourself `subhuman`.

    I guess it wasn’t apparent enough that when I talk about cheating, I am mainly talkg about mainland chinese. Given that Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan are just about every basic way much better places than mainland china- cleaner, safer, vastly less corrupt etc. etc.- I wouldn’t be surprised if cheating was far less of an issue in those places, nevermind how Hong Kong and Singapore are both city-states, the latter of which has very high immigration standards, promotes highly educated couples to have more children etc. Also, they make up a tiny fraction of the global chinese population.
     
    So you think Singapore HK and Taiwan represent the best crop of the Han Chinese? LMAO! it is not even funny.

    None of them can even reach 80 percentile in the national ranking by provinces (and most of them themselves know it if being honest) if take Chinas annual Gaokao exam - the worlds most competitive one . If go against all Han Chinese-majority provinces, Panda doubt any of them could reach 70 or even 60 percentile, most likely the average instead. More than half of poor provinces would eat them alive for breakfast on maths and sciences --- Go ask any Chinese student, any, in wherever corner of the world you are from.


    I also like the dig at the “relatively low IQ Korea and Japan”- they’re the same race as you, but like a good east asian racist, you can’t help but make a dig at those pathetic japs and gooks.
     
    Oh you do? Or you don’t have a faintest clue at all? LMAO

    The same race doesn’t not necessarily means the same. French, Italians, Irish, Serbians, Germans and Greeks etc are of the same race as well, but are they interchangeable?

    Nothing personal and national, the best analogy Panda can come up with is that:

    If the current EU (including the UK) kept united for the next 2,000 years, then that EU would be China, Denmark would be Korea, and Iceland or Ireland would be Japan.

    Intellectually, culturally, economically, technologically, racially, it has been more or less like that throughout the history.



    .

    And yes, cheating is a pretty big issue in South Korea too. I don’t know about Japan, but probably much less.
    Yeah, yeah it does mind. You’re actually, honest to god claiming that China is undoubtedly corrupt in every single conceivable fashion, EXCEPT for education, that breathtaking corruption and anomie and disregard of others in basically every facet of life is undeniable in modern China, but when it comes to
    And I won’t deny China would be vastly better off if not for those things- in fact, they could potentially be the leading superpower. But the roots of China’s dysfunction are deep, and go back up to a few centuries (and in ways even further), and while much of it could be layed at what it’s suffered in the last century, China has a long way to go before it ever frees itself of it’s pathologies. .
     
    Correct to a large extend, which makes Panda see a dim light at the end of the tunnel that even some morons are redeemable. LOL

    Correct to a large extend, not for the reason you think you know.

    Western law-based and Confucius ideal-based societies each are a double-edged sword. The topic was debated extensively for hundreds of years 2,200 years ago in China. Each of them has its pros and cons, depending which angle or time frame one looks at. No one would have imagine law-based democratic egalitarian rich just and fair society of Sweden would become what it is today merely 20 years ago, imagine 50 years later or 200 years later…then how about France? Belgium? UK? US?... Wall Street, Capitol Hill, your beloved CNN, Hollywood and of course Hufflingtonpost have nothing to do with widespread deep-rooted lethal corruptions? Is that your otherwise low IQ delusion you’re too shy to share with Panda btw? ROFL


    .


    You admit just a “tiny percentage” of chinese students cheat, (and I never claimed the average chinese student cheats, you deranged retard, but I wouldn’t be surprised if in some parts of China, it’s close to universal) and once again mock the CNN articles , as more jealousy from white subhumans (that have been “repeatedly broadcasted for ages”- I thought all of the claims of chinese students came out only in the past few years and were all thanks to that Dastardly laowai Loveless?), even though many of the articles I’ve cited are about INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS, and on tests UNRELATED TO THE PISA. Which you have yet to address, and just wave off as more propaganda. .
     
    Which one? Unrelated to PISA, but nonetheless from your beloved hufflingtonpost?

    Yep, propanganda.

    Next?


    .



    Of course people in the West cheat- people everywhere do. Just not as much as in mainland China, which goes with the fact the was is by and large a far better place than modern mainland China. .
     
    But that is not the question, sunshine.

    The intellectual question is for how long?

    .

    Then you go into some bizarre, megalomaniacal, supremacist rant about how white subhumans have to be told how to behave by kings, which the Chinese are, who all have intrinsic, unshakeable racial pride, intellect etc., that “slaves” like Loveless (there is no doubt you have a personal grudge against him), and even a dirt-poor Chinese peasant living in the countryside has always behaved far better (even now!) than natural slave whites. .
     
    Panda sees that your reading comprehension has been kept below 90 IQ level by your inferiority complex.

    Let Panda help you further with what the analogy was about:

    The Chinese Civilisation has been the rule-setter on all spheres throughout history in the immediate worthy geo-area that we cared to cover. We don’t follow the manners and etiquettes set by your Queen, most of which essentially are as shallow as $$$-based, woops sorry!

    We follow Confucius manners and etiquettes where morality of culture is way more important than how much money you have. A Chinese peasant who makes a living on his portion of rice field may not have (and he won’t give a damn)your Queen’s manners and etiquettes, but his inner morality of culture is usually far more superior than many of you lot who just won a lottery ticket 200 years ago.

    But intellectually we are open. We Chinese take what we see as valuable ideas whenever we look around at outside world (there aren’t all idiots all the time out there, right? LOL), improve them, and implement them to improve ourselves, but resolutely keep our path as Chinese Civilisation with mentality of a king.

    King mentality: why I care about what you think about me? who the fuck are you?
    Slave mentality: look, that’s what all others are doing/saying, and CNN, and Huff…Hufflingtonpost…oh my lord! that’s what I must do/say, too.

    老當益壯,甯移白首之心? 窮且益堅,不墜青雲之志. (even though becoming old, stronger I will be. How can I change my mind because of my grey hair? Even though becoming poor due to today’s circumstances, more affirmed my will is, and my sky-high ambition will never be affected – Confucius Tang Poem)

    Comparing this “etiquette-less” dirt poor peasant to your random nouveau riche dressing like a fag flashing wallet to the waitresses at the Four Seasons afternoon tea session, who is the King now?

    Yeah, bow!


    .

    So uh, I thought you didn’t deny that China is a horribly corrupt country now, and that the modern mainland chinese are very dysfunctional (except when it comes to education?) Or did you just see a great opportunity for a psychotic, racist rant? .
     
    Panda thought that you’ve been told that 2 things are not for discussion: avg test scores and Chinese food. You have a short memory.

    “Modern Chinese are dysfunctional”? LMAO. Your stupidity has no lower bound. Say even at “dyfuncational” Chinese studs still beat the shit out of you in avg test scores. ROFL The only dyfunational about modern China is its dysfunctional political and economical “elites” supported to power by the borrowed Western (Soviets/Jewish) Communist fake ideals. The question you should ask yourself is even the modern Chinese at out lowest point in history, relatively speaking, we still are the most economically dynamic region on this blue planet.

    Unlike most others of our competitors who have free hands to do anything they want for friggin 100 years in a row, even we started running FAR later from the starting line, and still have got our hands and feet tied up by the unfair Western Communist crap, in the fierce all-out global competitions, we are still about to lead the world technologically and economically. That tells much about avg IQ, doesn’t it genius? Now you can have a pity on yourself. ROFL



    .

    I was really debating whether I should continue debating with Panda, but after this, I think I’m done. I’m curious to see what Jayman will say about this maniac and how far off he is from China’s average IQ/prowess. Jayman seems to believe China’s modern dysfunction is pretty much genetic though, so that could be interesting- an HBDer who takes seriously claims of poor, impoverished, diseased chinese students outscoring swiss ones, and a psychotic chinese supremacist. .
     
    Yes, slaves like you listen to what others have to say; Kings like Panda say what they think, regardless of what the others think. LMAO.

    And yes, poor, impoverished, diseased Chinese students on avg have been beating swiss ones with one eye closed since the first day Europe copied China’s universal exam system centuries ago.


    .

    Still, Panda doesn’t really strike me as a good example of chinese intellect. He has the beligerence, crassness, disregard of etiquitte, narcissism etc. that modern mainland chinese have gotten a reputation for (but variously sees this as a good thing), but he just doesn’t come off as that bright. Things like the poor grammar, bizarre writing style, inability to accept new ideas and more don’t give the best impression off a race of polymaths. .
     
    Thank you very much for the compliments! Considering the current evolving state of your frontal lobe, Panda feels truly flattered. ROFL

    .

    As a few more things with Panda, you’ve been repeatedly claiming .all chinese average .very high IQ’s. I’m not sure how it’s far off to get from you that diaspora chinese are represenative (or is this something about inland chinese being the smarest?), and CNN (you have a grudge against them too clearly) claimed they’re represenative. Unless you think the CNN articles all claimed they’re all of mediocre/low IQ and only seem smart because of cheating, cramming etc. .
     
    Dude, you do have an issue with the concept of “average”. Go take an evening course on it. LMAO

    For the rest part, Panda doesn’t know what you’re gibberishing about…So your moral compass and intellectual hero CNN says blah blah again? Who the fuck is CNN? LOL

    .

    If you really want to see something like that, check out this post, from someone who ultimately alludes to east asians having significantly lower IQ’s than whites (which is crazy, but you might find it interesting):http://mpcdot.com/forums/topic/4163-plagiarized-effortpost-on-studyasians/#entry182899 .
     
    Examination result: that blog runner is a retard, intellectually not fit enough to clean Panda’s pows.

    .

    And really, what do you think the average chinese IQ really is? It’s clearly not 100 or even the unbelievable 105-108 that HBDers often trot out. Is it 115? 120? 130? 150? 200? Beyond what any IQ test can measure? .
     
    There is no “average”Chinese, just like there is no “average”American, get it?

    Panda´s best educated guess is that there are about 100 mio to 200 mio certain sub tribes of Han Chinese who currently have avg IQ slightly more than 110. With some Flynn effect (i.e. about equivalent to reach the OECD nutrition, general health care, and income level) they have potential to reach more than 115 to even somewhere high teens.

    The vast majority of the rest Han Chinese however, could be anywhere between about 105 (current ) to slightly above 108 (with Flynn) – slightly above the current HK (108) level.

    Most highly Hannised minorities could have about 100. The Muslim Hui Chinese about low-mid 90s. Turkic Muslims in the Western region low-mid 80s, Tibetens probably even lower.


    .

    Finally, your reason for why the chinese have always been supergeniuses is because they’ve always had the most fertile landmass. Not that this made them smarter, that it introduced conditions that would allow them to enrich themselves, but the very fact they had this to begin with is why they were smarter. . So chinese supergenius dates even before then? Damn, those ice age climates must have been more demanding than the biggest HBD weirdo ever fathomed! (But I doubt you’d accept siberians and inuits as being smarter than the chinese).
     
    Most likely both: smarter to start with to get the land; which (i.e. develope the land, keep the land from foreign hands, “snowball effect’ out of long-lasting peace and prosperity in the course of millennia etc.) also has benefited the people to become even smarter. Conquering the land is one thing, developing the land and keeping the land over a long history are many other things on top of it.


    .

    And you’d then have to ask about things like the fact the Chinese are in reality a large amalgamation of ethnic groups with mixing dating back millenia, with large amounts of gene flow from.southeast asia and elsewhere, that places with large amounts of Chinese admixture (much of southeast asia, including the Philippines) are in general ways even more backwards and unproductive than mainland China etc. But who knows- it could just be be beyond the comprehension of us laowai, simple as that. .
     
    Mostly “To” southeast asia, not “from”, because the simple logic that the strongest expand in the course of history, pushing outwards to others in general instead of the other way around. Philippines is about the country with the least % of Han blood in Southeast Asia, about 1%? – which included Amy Chua.

    .

    For all your trump up the Chinese being ahead because of their territory, don’t you think it’s kind of strange how for all of it’s territory, it’s historically large populations and long history and organization and such, the Chinese have been proportionately underperforming? They’ve been ahead at various points, but when you look at not just Europe, but many other civilizations that have produced remarkable accomplishments, have had generally much smaller populations. And no, I’m really not partial to the ideas of east asians being so uncreative, ultra-conformist, devoid of individuality etc., but if you want to go to this length, I don’t think China’s historical accomplishment is as impressive in face of it’s population size and more.
     
    A combi of many reasons for that, as it is logically expected. One of the major and simplest reasons is that disproportionably larger portion of the population of a larger country with large population can afford more luxury of layback lifestyle most of the time vís-a-vís a closely comparable yet much smaller population of a much smaller country – it is human nature that when you are rich and big, you will gradually become lazier, then decadent, then until the day you collapse, then the cycle starts all over again… Tiny countries such as Luxemburg, Switzerland, Netherlands or Belgium on per cap basis beat Germany and the US most of the time, so what? Guess what, the world’s most innovative country on per cap innovation basis is probably tiny Taiwan – far more than Japan or Germany or South Korea, whereas the 99% of the common people in the street would guess it probably would be the latter.

    .

    Just curious, but what do you think of Charles Murray’s “Human Accomplishment?” I think many people misconstrue his work, because it’s clearly about just a relatively small number of European countries, who didn’t begin to really shine until the past several centuries (though Jayman couldn’t help weaseling how northwest europe stacks up in this post) among other things, but I don’t think his figures are that far off from reality. .
     
    Long story short, generally sounds oke, but Panda thinks that Murray’s intellectual dishonesty on comparing fundamentally un-quantifiable achievements of entirely different nature and sorts from entirely different historical backgrounds and time frames causes him to make some wrong conclusions.

    .

    Oh, and India is a very fertile, comfortable country too- they have a similar population to China, and historically have been highly achieving too. But they’re even worse off, and are probably of lower IQ than China, among other things. .
     
    India is comfortable? ROFL. C’mon now. It took han Chinese probably 1,000 years to get used to the climate of Canton which is far better than hot steaming, mosquito-tropical disease thrived India. India’s current large population size, alongwith Sub Sahara Africa’s, is the legacy of post WW2 peaceful United Nation Charters which don’t allows foreign invasions and grant endless food aids, economical handouts, and free medicines from UN agencies together with countless NGOs. It won’t be able to sustain them, both India and Africa, in the longer course of natural evolutionary history.

    .

    And finally, I love the dig about the “Anglon-Saxon’s extremely invasive culture”- because China has never had imperial ambitions, in the past (like Vietnam and much of southeast asia) or even now, or exporting their culture to surrounding regions, or that such a thing is so alien to any nationalist/supremacist maniac. On top of shameless racial supremacy, you couldn’t help throw in some time-worn white guilt. .
     
    Glad that you like it, since it’s true. A tribe originated in Germany/England end up colonising half of the world 8,000 miles away can be described nothing short of “extremely invasive”, China is different – how many km is China from Korea or Japan or Northern Vietnam?

    And No, it is not shameless to tell that the blue is superiorly more blueish than the green, as it is objectively true. It’s nothing shameful to tell the truth. Yet it only becomes shameless when the blue have a clear contempt towards the green or even argue to eliminate it, to which Panda has never been even remotely close.
    , @JayMan
    That's enough you two. Further comments on the back and forth between the two of you will be deleted.
  107. @Advinesta
    You are confusing the label of "EMPIRE OF GHANA" on that map with it's exact location. The name is not where Ghana was located, it's the orange, colored area with Kumbi Saleh and Jenne-Jeno. Notice how there's no colored area where "EMPIRE OF GHANA" is. Or how that area is in a region of the sahara that's always been barely populated (not Morocco, or anywhere you could expect an empire to be centered.)

    You're the one who has it wrong, because you follow the kneejerk reaction of excusing achievements in SS africa on the part of berbers/arabs to such an extent you'll actually claim old Ghana was in Morocco.

    What do you even know about those societies shown on that map? They ranged from large tribal polities to indigenous states with advanced art, to empires with many cities, written language and literature, and extensive trade with the rest of the world. You can find more on that page you linked, but I guess it's easier to wave it all of as afrocentrism.

    Europeans were able to colonize the Americas so easily because of disease that wiped out many natives and more advanced technology (and no, I don't think they had that for reasons as narrow as you think.) It also took modern humans awhile to fully populate Eurasia, an incredible amount of time to even reach the Americas, and many pacific islands weren't even populated until the middle ages.

    We know there were humans in south africa tens of thousands years ago, and they were certainly much more primitive than the bantus. Populations migrate for a myriad number of reasons, and africa's population history is very old and complex.

    I don't laugh at Sailer, but I will criticize him when he's wrong, and I will criticize Jayman for relying on his ill-informed to outright dumb theories on africa's underdevelopment (like that bit about elephants.)

    If you go south of the atlas mountains, you’ll end up outside of Morocco’s borders and into the sahara, and you’ll still be a long ways off from medieval Ghana. You’re really reaching here.

    You want me to be right, and you can find out I am if you look at the wikipedia articles you’ve linked and I have. And yeah, you could probably say that about Athens, but you could also say the same about other huge places at various points in history. Again, you’re really reaching.

    I’m pretty sure medieval Ghana’s most populated parts were in the southern and eastern regions (it’s capital was in the south), and not the parts that went into Mauritania. Ghana also has a higher HDI, GDP etc. than Mauritania, so I don’t buy your claims it’s better off. Mauritania is a total backwater, with only a few million people, and was mostly nomadic until recently. It’s also mostly arab/berber and mixed, and somehow has conditions worse than much of SS africa.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Advinesta
    One last thing- given Mauritania has the world's highest rate of slavery, I'd say that also easily puts it as a worse place than modern Ghana.
  108. @Advinesta
    If you go south of the atlas mountains, you'll end up outside of Morocco's borders and into the sahara, and you'll still be a long ways off from medieval Ghana. You're really reaching here.

    You want me to be right, and you can find out I am if you look at the wikipedia articles you've linked and I have. And yeah, you could probably say that about Athens, but you could also say the same about other huge places at various points in history. Again, you're really reaching.

    I'm pretty sure medieval Ghana's most populated parts were in the southern and eastern regions (it's capital was in the south), and not the parts that went into Mauritania. Ghana also has a higher HDI, GDP etc. than Mauritania, so I don't buy your claims it's better off. Mauritania is a total backwater, with only a few million people, and was mostly nomadic until recently. It's also mostly arab/berber and mixed, and somehow has conditions worse than much of SS africa.

    One last thing- given Mauritania has the world’s highest rate of slavery, I’d say that also easily puts it as a worse place than modern Ghana.

    Read More
  109. @JayMan

    Did you even study your map? There is no real correlation between brain size and IQ there.
     
    I did study the map. The correlation is obvious, even if it is less than perfect.

    Secondly, Einstein’s brain was measured at 1230 gms.
     
    Read Rushton & Jensen 2010 above on that. Again, understand the difference between a 1.0 correlation and a 0.0 correlation. This is the last time I'm going to tell you.

    The correlation is obvious, even if it is less than perfect.

    According to your map:

    Eskimos et al have the biggest brains. Do they have higher IQ than east asians?

    The japanese have the same size brains as MENAs, mexicans, malays and many SSAs; yet their IQ is from one to two SD higher.

    Africans on average have bigger brains than south asians and indo-chinese (burmese, thai, cambodian, vietnamese, lao). That does not correlate to their respective IQs.

    The southern euros are cranially equal to MENAs etc yet there is 1 SD difference in IQ.

    The british have smaller brains than mainland western europeans yet there is no difference in IQ. Ditto for the japanese vs east asians.

    The uighurs, uzbeks, kyrgyz turks of central asia are equal to germans, scandinavians etc in brain size yet differ substantially in IQ.

    It is obvious that your map does not support your claim.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    According to your map:

    Eskimos et al have the biggest brains. Do they have higher IQ than east asians?
     

    Look, when a correlation is 0 < r < 1, you'll see an overall pattern, even though there will be discrepancies. I didn't say brain size is commensurate with average IQ (i.e., r = 1.0), only that there is a positive relationship. Yes, you're right about the discrepancies, but look at the big picture.

    This is rather sophomoric, so I don't really want to talk about it again here.

  110. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Re: The Hajnal line (which you did not mention) however, there seems to be similar mating behaviors among some Indians … would that be due to the common Indo European ancestry?

    Read More
    • Replies: @hbd chick

    Re: The Hajnal line (which you did not mention) however, there seems to be similar mating behaviors among some Indians … would that be due to the common Indo European ancestry?
     
    the traditional marriage pattern that john hajnal discovered -- i.e. that (north)western europeans have for a very long time (since the medieval period) tended to marry late, a good percentage not at all, and to live in nuclear families -- has, to date, not been found anywhere else in the world (although many societies have begun to adopt these practices in modern times). there's a reason it's known as the western european marriage pattern. pretty sure there aren't any similar behaviors among any indian groups.

    even if there were, though, they wouldn't be due to any common indo-european ancestry, since the set of practices in northwest europe developed during the middle ages and was connected to bipartite manorialism. in other words, these are not some ancient traditions that go back thousands of years. for more on this, see michael mitterauer's Why Europe?. (^_^)

  111. @JayMan

    This was relevant to the topic. No one says that population averages are precisely equal. What I’m saying is that you claim differences, but have nothing to say about the magnitude (or direction) of those differences.
     
    Come on Aaron: you ever hear of the expression "grasping at straws?" No, equal selection in all cognitive and behavioral traits is so unlikely it's not worth considering. And even beyond what we'd expect from theory, there is the fact that we have measurable differences between groups. We do indeed have plenty of data on the size and the magnitude. Hence this whole exercise is might silly.

    No natural phenomenon produces a simple pattern of exact equality. Looking at say mountain ranges across the world average attitude varies substantially although the different ranges are all formed by roughly similar processes of tectonic uplift and erosian. No two mountain ranges are any thing like identical.

    No biological trait works like equalitarians claim intelligence works. Average height of human populations varies over about four standard deviations somewhat similar to the variation in meeasured IQ.

    Read More
  112. @Bliss

    The correlation is obvious, even if it is less than perfect.
     
    According to your map:

    Eskimos et al have the biggest brains. Do they have higher IQ than east asians?

    The japanese have the same size brains as MENAs, mexicans, malays and many SSAs; yet their IQ is from one to two SD higher.

    Africans on average have bigger brains than south asians and indo-chinese (burmese, thai, cambodian, vietnamese, lao). That does not correlate to their respective IQs.

    The southern euros are cranially equal to MENAs etc yet there is 1 SD difference in IQ.

    The british have smaller brains than mainland western europeans yet there is no difference in IQ. Ditto for the japanese vs east asians.

    The uighurs, uzbeks, kyrgyz turks of central asia are equal to germans, scandinavians etc in brain size yet differ substantially in IQ.


    It is obvious that your map does not support your claim.

    According to your map:

    Eskimos et al have the biggest brains. Do they have higher IQ than east asians?

    Look, when a correlation is 0 < r < 1, you'll see an overall pattern, even though there will be discrepancies. I didn't say brain size is commensurate with average IQ (i.e., r = 1.0), only that there is a positive relationship. Yes, you’re right about the discrepancies, but look at the big picture.

    This is rather sophomoric, so I don’t really want to talk about it again here.

    Read More
  113. @Advinesta
    In that entire rambling, narcissistic rant, you didn't bother cite to a single thing, especially what the jealous laowai beast Loveless censored. And yes, you can make a great many things up about academic performace, especially when it's about one of the most corrupt countries on the planet.

    Andreas Schleicer also claims that because the PISA 2012 Technical Background Annex claims theres "no cheating, whatsoever, involved". That's an incredible claim for any test, or that general cheating/cramming/rote memorization can't carry over to a great many tests, and Azerbaijan, a country that's generally done very poorly, also got caught cheating in 2009 on the PISA- but just 3 years later, in a country that's synonymous with corruption, that never happened.

    Yes, no chinese takes PISA seriously, but they still manage to do incredibly, and if they did, they'd be on an entirely different dimension compared to the other subhumans. You do atleast admit the "competitions for grades in chinese school are from another universe", which is a bad thing and would make things like cheating to a sizable degree a sensible option, but you keep telling me this doesn't really matter.

    You also saw "many" comments on chinese blogs about people complaining that the questions were too easy- great evidence. You might think, among other things, these weren't representative, but again, there's that laowai underestimation of chinese supergenius. And man, given that student spent in China is 1/20 that of the highest ranking OECD countries, maybe that average IQ of 130 on the part of China would really shine. How can us retarded, subhuman laoiwai even continue to argue?

    I guess it wasn't apparent enough that when I talk about cheating, I am mainly talkg about mainland chinese. Given that Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan are just about every basic way much better places than mainland china- cleaner, safer, vastly less corrupt etc. etc.- I wouldn't be surprised if cheating was far less of an issue in those places, nevermind how Hong Kong and Singapore are both city-states, the latter of which has very high immigration standards, promotes highly educated couples to have more children etc. Also, they make up a tiny fraction of the global chinese population.

    I also like the dig at the "relatively low IQ Korea and Japan"- they're the same race as you, but like a good east asian racist, you can't help but make a dig at those pathetic japs and gooks.

    And yes, cheating is a pretty big issue in South Korea too. I don't know about Japan, but probably much less.
    Yeah, yeah it does mind. You're actually, honest to god claiming that China is undoubtedly corrupt in every single conceivable fashion, EXCEPT for education, that breathtaking corruption and anomie and disregard of others in basically every facet of life is undeniable in modern China, but when it comes to
    And I won't deny China would be vastly better off if not for those things- in fact, they could potentially be the leading superpower. But the roots of China's dysfunction are deep, and go back up to a few centuries (and in ways even further), and while much of it could be layed at what it's suffered in the last century, China has a long way to go before it ever frees itself of it's pathologies.

    You admit just a "tiny percentage" of chinese students cheat, (and I never claimed the average chinese student cheats, you deranged retard, but I wouldn't be surprised if in some parts of China, it's close to universal) and once again mock the CNN articles , as more jealousy from white subhumans (that have been "repeatedly broadcasted for ages"- I thought all of the claims of chinese students came out only in the past few years and were all thanks to that Dastardly laowai Loveless?), even though many of the articles I've cited are about INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS, and on tests UNRELATED TO THE PISA. Which you have yet to address, and just wave off as more propaganda.

    Of course people in the West cheat- people everywhere do. Just not as much as in mainland China, which goes with the fact the was is by and large a far better place than modern mainland China.

    Then you go into some bizarre, megalomaniacal, supremacist rant about how white subhumans have to be told how to behave by kings, which the Chinese are, who all have intrinsic, unshakeable racial pride, intellect etc., that "slaves" like Loveless (there is no doubt you have a personal grudge against him), and even a dirt-poor Chinese peasant living in the countryside has always behaved far better (even now!) than natural slave whites.

    So uh, I thought you didn't deny that China is a horribly corrupt country now, and that the modern mainland chinese are very dysfunctional (except when it comes to education?) Or did you just see a great opportunity for a psychotic, racist rant?

    I was really debating whether I should continue debating with Panda, but after this, I think I'm done. I'm curious to see what Jayman will say about this maniac and how far off he is from China's average IQ/prowess. Jayman seems to believe China's modern dysfunction is pretty much genetic though, so that could be interesting- an HBDer who takes seriously claims of poor, impoverished, diseased chinese students outscoring swiss ones, and a psychotic chinese supremacist.

    Still, Panda doesn't really strike me as a good example of chinese intellect. He has the beligerence, crassness, disregard of etiquitte, narcissism etc. that modern mainland chinese have gotten a reputation for (but variously sees this as a good thing), but he just doesn't come off as that bright. Things like the poor grammar, bizarre writing style, inability to accept new ideas and more don't give the best impression off a race of polymaths.

    As a few more things with Panda, you've been repeatedly claiming all chinese average very high IQ's. I'm not sure how it's far off to get from you that diaspora chinese are represenative (or is this something about inland chinese being the smarest?), and CNN (you have a grudge against them too clearly) claimed they're represenative. Unless you think the CNN articles all claimed they're all of mediocre/low IQ and only seem smart because of cheating, cramming etc.

    If you really want to see something like that, check out this post, from someone who ultimately alludes to east asians having significantly lower IQ's than whites (which is crazy, but you might find it interesting): http://mpcdot.com/forums/topic/4163-plagiarized-effortpost-on-studyasians/#entry182899

    And really, what do you think the average chinese IQ really is? It's clearly not 100 or even the unbelievable 105-108 that HBDers often trot out. Is it 115? 120? 130? 150? 200? Beyond what any IQ test can measure?

    Finally, your reason for why the chinese have always been supergeniuses is because they've always had the most fertile landmass. Not that this made them smarter, that it introduced conditions that would allow them to enrich themselves, but the very fact they had this to begin with is why they were smarter.
    So chinese supergenius dates even before then? Damn, those ice age climates must have been more demanding than the biggest HBD weirdo ever fathomed! (But I doubt you'd accept siberians and inuits as being smarter than the chinese). And you'd then have to ask about things like the fact the Chinese are in reality a large amalgamation of ethnic groups with mixing dating back millenia, with large amounts of gene flow from southeast asia and elsewhere, that places with large amounts of Chinese admixture (much of southeast asia, including the Philippines) are in general ways even more backwards and unproductive than mainland China etc. But who knows- it could just be be beyond the comprehension of us laowai, simple as that.

    Oh, and european achievement extends well before the settling of the US. Like all the way to ancient Greece. And even in more ancient times, you could look to the renaissance a few centuries before and really throughout the middle ages. And how the US broke off from Britain. And the fact the industrial revolution began in Britain. And that american colonialism was in major ways never that beneficial to European powers. And that places like Germany, even in the modern era, produced immense scientific, cultural etc. achievements even though their colonial empire has been marginal. And that large parts of the US weren't even settled in substantial numbers until quite recently. And the US' achievements have generally been from a few areas. And that European achivement is disproportionately due to a relatively few number of countries.

    For all your trump up the Chinese being ahead because of their territory, don't you think it's kind of strange how for all of it's territory, it's historically large populations and long history and organization and such, the Chinese have been proportionately underperforming? They've been ahead at various points, but when you look at not just Europe, but many other civilizations that have produced remarkable accomplishments, have had generally much smaller populations. And no, I'm really not partial to the ideas of east asians being so uncreative, ultra-conformist, devoid of individuality etc., but if you want to go to this length, I don't think China's historical accomplishment is as impressive in face of it's population size and more.

    Just curious, but what do you think of Charles Murray's "Human Accomplishment?" I think many people misconstrue his work, because it's clearly about just a relatively small number of European countries, who didn't begin to really shine until the past several centuries (though Jayman couldn't help weaseling how northwest europe stacks up in this post) among other things, but I don't think his figures are that far off from reality.

    Oh, and India is a very fertile, comfortable country too- they have a similar population to China, and historically have been highly achieving too. But they're even worse off, and are probably of lower IQ than China, among other things.

    And finally, I love the dig about the "Anglon-Saxon's extremely invasive culture"- because China has never had imperial ambitions, in the past (like Vietnam and much of southeast asia) or even now, or exporting their culture to surrounding regions, or that such a thing is so alien to any nationalist/supremacist maniac. On top of shameless racial supremacy, you couldn't help throw in some time-worn white guilt.

    So you try to overwhelm Panda with a sea of gibberish using your much less valuable evening hours? ROFL. Now Panda gived you a sea of wisdom! LOL

    Panda coming back to you in length is in the spirit to take the opportunity reaching wider audiences using your common MSM low IQ hit piece taking points, apart from giving you a competitive and free education in this area- please don’t take it personally, Panda has no intention at all to disrespect you as a person, but just being too polite to miss this chance to greatly enhance your knowledge and intellectual enlightenment. Saluting Panda for the very precious time & effort input or not is not important though:

    In that entire rambling, narcissistic rant, you didn’t bother cite to a single thing, especially what the jealous laowai beast Loveless censored. And yes, you can make a great many things up about academic performace, especially when it’s about one of the most corrupt countries on the planet.

    That’s not true. Panda cited Panda a lot. Most of the CNN-cartel “journalist” trolls you cited could not intellectually count up to 20 without taking off their socks while in schools – and many still can’t, while being busying at regurgitating their politically-oriented editorial lines in the desperate hope to keep their pathetically low-paying jobs to foot their monthly household bills. Morally and intellectually speaking most of them are not fit to hold the suitcase of Panda’s secretary, to be honest. For your own good, next time you want to cite sth shining, go ahead citing Panda.

    On test scores , China never cheats – 1 of 2 Panda points that is closed for discussion. Zhejiang’s scores were communicated to them by OECD. All the scores of 12 provinces of China currently sit at archive of OECD PISA in Paris, albeit not being publicly released yet. So you are running a full risk of being ridiculed by your own ridiculous accusation. LoL

    [MORE]

    Andreas Schleicer also claims that because the PISA 2012 Technical Background Annex claims theres “no cheating, whatsoever, involved”. That’s an incredible claim for any test, or that general cheating/cramming/rote memorization can’t carry over to a great many tests, and Azerbaijan, a country that’s generally done very poorly, also got caught cheating in 2009 on the PISA- but just 3 years later, in a country that’s synonymous with corruption, that never happened.

    Panda trusts Andreas´s claim way more than you (and Loveless as well for that matter) as he and his armies of OECD PISA colleagues have all the factual test backups in their drawers, you not, sorry pal.

    Yes, no chinese takes PISA seriously, but they still manage to do incredibly, and if they did, they’d be on an entirely different dimension compared to the other subhumans.

    Yes, Panda doesn’t take breakfast seriously, but Panda still manage to eat an incredible full course of it every morning. And George Clooney doesn’t take ladies seriously, but darn it, he still manages to have a lot at flip of fingers. What’s your friggin point? ROFL

    And pls, stop having so much inferiority complex keep addressing yourself `subman`. Panda has not called you so. You do it to yourself.

    You do atleast admit the “competitions for grades in chinese school are from another universe”, which is a bad thing and would make things like cheating to a sizable degree a sensible option, but you keep telling me this doesn’t really matter.

    Panda tells you again: it doesn´t matter. No matter what and when, cheating is inside ALL human societies and all walks of life. But % are small which doesn´t affect the average (hello, kitty?!) too much. On top of that, in any very competitive environment, more often than not the top guys have more incentive to cheat than less smart guys, rather than the other way around, for a natural reason of getting further ahead. So the cheating itself is not a sufficient proof, as it happens often, that the cheating guy is not relatively more capable than others even without cheating. Such examples have been abundant in all walks of life since eons :

    president-to-be Obama had much stronger incentives to cheat, as he did, on his uni grades than a small time county chief-to-be…

    billionaire Donald Trump has – had much stronger incentives to cheat, as he did/is doing, on his tax issues, moral issues etc. than an average salaried construction worker…

    Wall Street-City of London top bankers elite traders have much stronger incentives to cheat, as they did/are doing, on libor rate fixings, rating mythologies, economy outlook etc a shit load of youknowhat than a high-school dropout bank cashier at the front desk…

    Multiple true championship holders like Marion Jones, Justin Gatlin, Ben Johnson etc had much stronger incentives to cheat, as they did, than a mediocre runner such as Panda who can not even reach the school sport meeting final, let alone on the world stage…

    etc etc use your imagination…

    However, their cheating itself is not a sufficient accusation evidence that those guys are intellectually -professionally less capable than their counterparts in their corresponding fields, as you, and your low IQ CNN cartel hit campaign gangs, insinuate to be all the time. Is that clear enough, chief?

    And man, given that student spent in China is 1/20 that of the highest ranking OECD countries, maybe that average IQ of 130 on the part of China would really shine. How can us retarded, subhuman laoiwai even continue to argue?

    Panda didn´t claim 130, you did.

    And again, rid off your inferiority complex and stop calling yourself `subhuman`.

    I guess it wasn’t apparent enough that when I talk about cheating, I am mainly talkg about mainland chinese. Given that Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan are just about every basic way much better places than mainland china- cleaner, safer, vastly less corrupt etc. etc.- I wouldn’t be surprised if cheating was far less of an issue in those places, nevermind how Hong Kong and Singapore are both city-states, the latter of which has very high immigration standards, promotes highly educated couples to have more children etc. Also, they make up a tiny fraction of the global chinese population.

    So you think Singapore HK and Taiwan represent the best crop of the Han Chinese? LMAO! it is not even funny.

    None of them can even reach 80 percentile in the national ranking by provinces (and most of them themselves know it if being honest) if take Chinas annual Gaokao exam – the worlds most competitive one . If go against all Han Chinese-majority provinces, Panda doubt any of them could reach 70 or even 60 percentile, most likely the average instead. More than half of poor provinces would eat them alive for breakfast on maths and sciences — Go ask any Chinese student, any, in wherever corner of the world you are from.

    I also like the dig at the “relatively low IQ Korea and Japan”- they’re the same race as you, but like a good east asian racist, you can’t help but make a dig at those pathetic japs and gooks.

    Oh you do? Or you don’t have a faintest clue at all? LMAO

    The same race doesn’t not necessarily means the same. French, Italians, Irish, Serbians, Germans and Greeks etc are of the same race as well, but are they interchangeable?

    Nothing personal and national, the best analogy Panda can come up with is that:

    If the current EU (including the UK) kept united for the next 2,000 years, then that EU would be China, Denmark would be Korea, and Iceland or Ireland would be Japan.

    Intellectually, culturally, economically, technologically, racially, it has been more or less like that throughout the history.

    .

    And yes, cheating is a pretty big issue in South Korea too. I don’t know about Japan, but probably much less.
    Yeah, yeah it does mind. You’re actually, honest to god claiming that China is undoubtedly corrupt in every single conceivable fashion, EXCEPT for education, that breathtaking corruption and anomie and disregard of others in basically every facet of life is undeniable in modern China, but when it comes to
    And I won’t deny China would be vastly better off if not for those things- in fact, they could potentially be the leading superpower. But the roots of China’s dysfunction are deep, and go back up to a few centuries (and in ways even further), and while much of it could be layed at what it’s suffered in the last century, China has a long way to go before it ever frees itself of it’s pathologies. .

    Correct to a large extend, which makes Panda see a dim light at the end of the tunnel that even some morons are redeemable. LOL

    Correct to a large extend, not for the reason you think you know.

    Western law-based and Confucius ideal-based societies each are a double-edged sword. The topic was debated extensively for hundreds of years 2,200 years ago in China. Each of them has its pros and cons, depending which angle or time frame one looks at. No one would have imagine law-based democratic egalitarian rich just and fair society of Sweden would become what it is today merely 20 years ago, imagine 50 years later or 200 years later…then how about France? Belgium? UK? US?… Wall Street, Capitol Hill, your beloved CNN, Hollywood and of course Hufflingtonpost have nothing to do with widespread deep-rooted lethal corruptions? Is that your otherwise low IQ delusion you’re too shy to share with Panda btw? ROFL

    .

    You admit just a “tiny percentage” of chinese students cheat, (and I never claimed the average chinese student cheats, you deranged retard, but I wouldn’t be surprised if in some parts of China, it’s close to universal) and once again mock the CNN articles , as more jealousy from white subhumans (that have been “repeatedly broadcasted for ages”- I thought all of the claims of chinese students came out only in the past few years and were all thanks to that Dastardly laowai Loveless?), even though many of the articles I’ve cited are about INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS, and on tests UNRELATED TO THE PISA. Which you have yet to address, and just wave off as more propaganda. .

    Which one? Unrelated to PISA, but nonetheless from your beloved hufflingtonpost?

    Yep, propanganda.

    Next?

    .

    Of course people in the West cheat- people everywhere do. Just not as much as in mainland China, which goes with the fact the was is by and large a far better place than modern mainland China. .

    But that is not the question, sunshine.

    The intellectual question is for how long?

    .

    Then you go into some bizarre, megalomaniacal, supremacist rant about how white subhumans have to be told how to behave by kings, which the Chinese are, who all have intrinsic, unshakeable racial pride, intellect etc., that “slaves” like Loveless (there is no doubt you have a personal grudge against him), and even a dirt-poor Chinese peasant living in the countryside has always behaved far better (even now!) than natural slave whites. .

    Panda sees that your reading comprehension has been kept below 90 IQ level by your inferiority complex.

    Let Panda help you further with what the analogy was about:

    The Chinese Civilisation has been the rule-setter on all spheres throughout history in the immediate worthy geo-area that we cared to cover. We don’t follow the manners and etiquettes set by your Queen, most of which essentially are as shallow as $$$-based, woops sorry!

    We follow Confucius manners and etiquettes where morality of culture is way more important than how much money you have. A Chinese peasant who makes a living on his portion of rice field may not have (and he won’t give a damn)your Queen’s manners and etiquettes, but his inner morality of culture is usually far more superior than many of you lot who just won a lottery ticket 200 years ago.

    But intellectually we are open. We Chinese take what we see as valuable ideas whenever we look around at outside world (there aren’t all idiots all the time out there, right? LOL), improve them, and implement them to improve ourselves, but resolutely keep our path as Chinese Civilisation with mentality of a king.

    King mentality: why I care about what you think about me? who the fuck are you?
    Slave mentality: look, that’s what all others are doing/saying, and CNN, and Huff…Hufflingtonpost…oh my lord! that’s what I must do/say, too.

    老當益壯,甯移白首之心? 窮且益堅,不墜青雲之志. (even though becoming old, stronger I will be. How can I change my mind because of my grey hair? Even though becoming poor due to today’s circumstances, more affirmed my will is, and my sky-high ambition will never be affected – Confucius Tang Poem)

    Comparing this “etiquette-less” dirt poor peasant to your random nouveau riche dressing like a fag flashing wallet to the waitresses at the Four Seasons afternoon tea session, who is the King now?

    Yeah, bow!

    .

    So uh, I thought you didn’t deny that China is a horribly corrupt country now, and that the modern mainland chinese are very dysfunctional (except when it comes to education?) Or did you just see a great opportunity for a psychotic, racist rant? .

    Panda thought that you’ve been told that 2 things are not for discussion: avg test scores and Chinese food. You have a short memory.

    “Modern Chinese are dysfunctional”? LMAO. Your stupidity has no lower bound. Say even at “dyfuncational” Chinese studs still beat the shit out of you in avg test scores. ROFL The only dyfunational about modern China is its dysfunctional political and economical “elites” supported to power by the borrowed Western (Soviets/Jewish) Communist fake ideals. The question you should ask yourself is even the modern Chinese at out lowest point in history, relatively speaking, we still are the most economically dynamic region on this blue planet.

    Unlike most others of our competitors who have free hands to do anything they want for friggin 100 years in a row, even we started running FAR later from the starting line, and still have got our hands and feet tied up by the unfair Western Communist crap, in the fierce all-out global competitions, we are still about to lead the world technologically and economically. That tells much about avg IQ, doesn’t it genius? Now you can have a pity on yourself. ROFL

    .

    I was really debating whether I should continue debating with Panda, but after this, I think I’m done. I’m curious to see what Jayman will say about this maniac and how far off he is from China’s average IQ/prowess. Jayman seems to believe China’s modern dysfunction is pretty much genetic though, so that could be interesting- an HBDer who takes seriously claims of poor, impoverished, diseased chinese students outscoring swiss ones, and a psychotic chinese supremacist. .

    Yes, slaves like you listen to what others have to say; Kings like Panda say what they think, regardless of what the others think. LMAO.

    And yes, poor, impoverished, diseased Chinese students on avg have been beating swiss ones with one eye closed since the first day Europe copied China’s universal exam system centuries ago.

    .

    Still, Panda doesn’t really strike me as a good example of chinese intellect. He has the beligerence, crassness, disregard of etiquitte, narcissism etc. that modern mainland chinese have gotten a reputation for (but variously sees this as a good thing), but he just doesn’t come off as that bright. Things like the poor grammar, bizarre writing style, inability to accept new ideas and more don’t give the best impression off a race of polymaths. .

    Thank you very much for the compliments! Considering the current evolving state of your frontal lobe, Panda feels truly flattered. ROFL

    .

    As a few more things with Panda, you’ve been repeatedly claiming .all chinese average .very high IQ’s. I’m not sure how it’s far off to get from you that diaspora chinese are represenative (or is this something about inland chinese being the smarest?), and CNN (you have a grudge against them too clearly) claimed they’re represenative. Unless you think the CNN articles all claimed they’re all of mediocre/low IQ and only seem smart because of cheating, cramming etc. .

    Dude, you do have an issue with the concept of “average”. Go take an evening course on it. LMAO

    For the rest part, Panda doesn’t know what you’re gibberishing about…So your moral compass and intellectual hero CNN says blah blah again? Who the fuck is CNN? LOL

    .

    If you really want to see something like that, check out this post, from someone who ultimately alludes to east asians having significantly lower IQ’s than whites (which is crazy, but you might find it interesting):http://mpcdot.com/forums/topic/4163-plagiarized-effortpost-on-studyasians/#entry182899 .

    Examination result: that blog runner is a retard, intellectually not fit enough to clean Panda’s pows.

    .

    And really, what do you think the average chinese IQ really is? It’s clearly not 100 or even the unbelievable 105-108 that HBDers often trot out. Is it 115? 120? 130? 150? 200? Beyond what any IQ test can measure? .

    There is no “average”Chinese, just like there is no “average”American, get it?

    Panda´s best educated guess is that there are about 100 mio to 200 mio certain sub tribes of Han Chinese who currently have avg IQ slightly more than 110. With some Flynn effect (i.e. about equivalent to reach the OECD nutrition, general health care, and income level) they have potential to reach more than 115 to even somewhere high teens.

    The vast majority of the rest Han Chinese however, could be anywhere between about 105 (current ) to slightly above 108 (with Flynn) – slightly above the current HK (108) level.

    Most highly Hannised minorities could have about 100. The Muslim Hui Chinese about low-mid 90s. Turkic Muslims in the Western region low-mid 80s, Tibetens probably even lower.

    .

    Finally, your reason for why the chinese have always been supergeniuses is because they’ve always had the most fertile landmass. Not that this made them smarter, that it introduced conditions that would allow them to enrich themselves, but the very fact they had this to begin with is why they were smarter. . So chinese supergenius dates even before then? Damn, those ice age climates must have been more demanding than the biggest HBD weirdo ever fathomed! (But I doubt you’d accept siberians and inuits as being smarter than the chinese).

    Most likely both: smarter to start with to get the land; which (i.e. develope the land, keep the land from foreign hands, “snowball effect’ out of long-lasting peace and prosperity in the course of millennia etc.) also has benefited the people to become even smarter. Conquering the land is one thing, developing the land and keeping the land over a long history are many other things on top of it.

    .

    And you’d then have to ask about things like the fact the Chinese are in reality a large amalgamation of ethnic groups with mixing dating back millenia, with large amounts of gene flow from.southeast asia and elsewhere, that places with large amounts of Chinese admixture (much of southeast asia, including the Philippines) are in general ways even more backwards and unproductive than mainland China etc. But who knows- it could just be be beyond the comprehension of us laowai, simple as that. .

    Mostly “To” southeast asia, not “from”, because the simple logic that the strongest expand in the course of history, pushing outwards to others in general instead of the other way around. Philippines is about the country with the least % of Han blood in Southeast Asia, about 1%? – which included Amy Chua.

    .

    For all your trump up the Chinese being ahead because of their territory, don’t you think it’s kind of strange how for all of it’s territory, it’s historically large populations and long history and organization and such, the Chinese have been proportionately underperforming? They’ve been ahead at various points, but when you look at not just Europe, but many other civilizations that have produced remarkable accomplishments, have had generally much smaller populations. And no, I’m really not partial to the ideas of east asians being so uncreative, ultra-conformist, devoid of individuality etc., but if you want to go to this length, I don’t think China’s historical accomplishment is as impressive in face of it’s population size and more.

    A combi of many reasons for that, as it is logically expected. One of the major and simplest reasons is that disproportionably larger portion of the population of a larger country with large population can afford more luxury of layback lifestyle most of the time vís-a-vís a closely comparable yet much smaller population of a much smaller country – it is human nature that when you are rich and big, you will gradually become lazier, then decadent, then until the day you collapse, then the cycle starts all over again… Tiny countries such as Luxemburg, Switzerland, Netherlands or Belgium on per cap basis beat Germany and the US most of the time, so what? Guess what, the world’s most innovative country on per cap innovation basis is probably tiny Taiwan – far more than Japan or Germany or South Korea, whereas the 99% of the common people in the street would guess it probably would be the latter.

    .

    Just curious, but what do you think of Charles Murray’s “Human Accomplishment?” I think many people misconstrue his work, because it’s clearly about just a relatively small number of European countries, who didn’t begin to really shine until the past several centuries (though Jayman couldn’t help weaseling how northwest europe stacks up in this post) among other things, but I don’t think his figures are that far off from reality. .

    Long story short, generally sounds oke, but Panda thinks that Murray’s intellectual dishonesty on comparing fundamentally un-quantifiable achievements of entirely different nature and sorts from entirely different historical backgrounds and time frames causes him to make some wrong conclusions.

    .

    Oh, and India is a very fertile, comfortable country too- they have a similar population to China, and historically have been highly achieving too. But they’re even worse off, and are probably of lower IQ than China, among other things. .

    India is comfortable? ROFL. C’mon now. It took han Chinese probably 1,000 years to get used to the climate of Canton which is far better than hot steaming, mosquito-tropical disease thrived India. India’s current large population size, alongwith Sub Sahara Africa’s, is the legacy of post WW2 peaceful United Nation Charters which don’t allows foreign invasions and grant endless food aids, economical handouts, and free medicines from UN agencies together with countless NGOs. It won’t be able to sustain them, both India and Africa, in the longer course of natural evolutionary history.

    .

    And finally, I love the dig about the “Anglon-Saxon’s extremely invasive culture”- because China has never had imperial ambitions, in the past (like Vietnam and much of southeast asia) or even now, or exporting their culture to surrounding regions, or that such a thing is so alien to any nationalist/supremacist maniac. On top of shameless racial supremacy, you couldn’t help throw in some time-worn white guilt. .

    Glad that you like it, since it’s true. A tribe originated in Germany/England end up colonising half of the world 8,000 miles away can be described nothing short of “extremely invasive”, China is different – how many km is China from Korea or Japan or Northern Vietnam?

    And No, it is not shameless to tell that the blue is superiorly more blueish than the green, as it is objectively true. It’s nothing shameful to tell the truth. Yet it only becomes shameless when the blue have a clear contempt towards the green or even argue to eliminate it, to which Panda has never been even remotely close.

    Read More
  114. @The most deplorable one
    Re: The Hajnal line (which you did not mention) however, there seems to be similar mating behaviors among some Indians ... would that be due to the common Indo European ancestry?

    Re: The Hajnal line (which you did not mention) however, there seems to be similar mating behaviors among some Indians … would that be due to the common Indo European ancestry?

    the traditional marriage pattern that john hajnal discovered — i.e. that (north)western europeans have for a very long time (since the medieval period) tended to marry late, a good percentage not at all, and to live in nuclear families — has, to date, not been found anywhere else in the world (although many societies have begun to adopt these practices in modern times). there’s a reason it’s known as the western european marriage pattern. pretty sure there aren’t any similar behaviors among any indian groups.

    even if there were, though, they wouldn’t be due to any common indo-european ancestry, since the set of practices in northwest europe developed during the middle ages and was connected to bipartite manorialism. in other words, these are not some ancient traditions that go back thousands of years. for more on this, see michael mitterauer’s Why Europe?. (^_^)

    Read More
    • Replies: @The most deplorable one
    These days I see much genetic influence on behavior and much less to do with tradition.

    The middle ages seems too recent for R = H^2 * S.
  115. @Advinesta
    In that entire rambling, narcissistic rant, you didn't bother cite to a single thing, especially what the jealous laowai beast Loveless censored. And yes, you can make a great many things up about academic performace, especially when it's about one of the most corrupt countries on the planet.

    Andreas Schleicer also claims that because the PISA 2012 Technical Background Annex claims theres "no cheating, whatsoever, involved". That's an incredible claim for any test, or that general cheating/cramming/rote memorization can't carry over to a great many tests, and Azerbaijan, a country that's generally done very poorly, also got caught cheating in 2009 on the PISA- but just 3 years later, in a country that's synonymous with corruption, that never happened.

    Yes, no chinese takes PISA seriously, but they still manage to do incredibly, and if they did, they'd be on an entirely different dimension compared to the other subhumans. You do atleast admit the "competitions for grades in chinese school are from another universe", which is a bad thing and would make things like cheating to a sizable degree a sensible option, but you keep telling me this doesn't really matter.

    You also saw "many" comments on chinese blogs about people complaining that the questions were too easy- great evidence. You might think, among other things, these weren't representative, but again, there's that laowai underestimation of chinese supergenius. And man, given that student spent in China is 1/20 that of the highest ranking OECD countries, maybe that average IQ of 130 on the part of China would really shine. How can us retarded, subhuman laoiwai even continue to argue?

    I guess it wasn't apparent enough that when I talk about cheating, I am mainly talkg about mainland chinese. Given that Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan are just about every basic way much better places than mainland china- cleaner, safer, vastly less corrupt etc. etc.- I wouldn't be surprised if cheating was far less of an issue in those places, nevermind how Hong Kong and Singapore are both city-states, the latter of which has very high immigration standards, promotes highly educated couples to have more children etc. Also, they make up a tiny fraction of the global chinese population.

    I also like the dig at the "relatively low IQ Korea and Japan"- they're the same race as you, but like a good east asian racist, you can't help but make a dig at those pathetic japs and gooks.

    And yes, cheating is a pretty big issue in South Korea too. I don't know about Japan, but probably much less.
    Yeah, yeah it does mind. You're actually, honest to god claiming that China is undoubtedly corrupt in every single conceivable fashion, EXCEPT for education, that breathtaking corruption and anomie and disregard of others in basically every facet of life is undeniable in modern China, but when it comes to
    And I won't deny China would be vastly better off if not for those things- in fact, they could potentially be the leading superpower. But the roots of China's dysfunction are deep, and go back up to a few centuries (and in ways even further), and while much of it could be layed at what it's suffered in the last century, China has a long way to go before it ever frees itself of it's pathologies.

    You admit just a "tiny percentage" of chinese students cheat, (and I never claimed the average chinese student cheats, you deranged retard, but I wouldn't be surprised if in some parts of China, it's close to universal) and once again mock the CNN articles , as more jealousy from white subhumans (that have been "repeatedly broadcasted for ages"- I thought all of the claims of chinese students came out only in the past few years and were all thanks to that Dastardly laowai Loveless?), even though many of the articles I've cited are about INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS, and on tests UNRELATED TO THE PISA. Which you have yet to address, and just wave off as more propaganda.

    Of course people in the West cheat- people everywhere do. Just not as much as in mainland China, which goes with the fact the was is by and large a far better place than modern mainland China.

    Then you go into some bizarre, megalomaniacal, supremacist rant about how white subhumans have to be told how to behave by kings, which the Chinese are, who all have intrinsic, unshakeable racial pride, intellect etc., that "slaves" like Loveless (there is no doubt you have a personal grudge against him), and even a dirt-poor Chinese peasant living in the countryside has always behaved far better (even now!) than natural slave whites.

    So uh, I thought you didn't deny that China is a horribly corrupt country now, and that the modern mainland chinese are very dysfunctional (except when it comes to education?) Or did you just see a great opportunity for a psychotic, racist rant?

    I was really debating whether I should continue debating with Panda, but after this, I think I'm done. I'm curious to see what Jayman will say about this maniac and how far off he is from China's average IQ/prowess. Jayman seems to believe China's modern dysfunction is pretty much genetic though, so that could be interesting- an HBDer who takes seriously claims of poor, impoverished, diseased chinese students outscoring swiss ones, and a psychotic chinese supremacist.

    Still, Panda doesn't really strike me as a good example of chinese intellect. He has the beligerence, crassness, disregard of etiquitte, narcissism etc. that modern mainland chinese have gotten a reputation for (but variously sees this as a good thing), but he just doesn't come off as that bright. Things like the poor grammar, bizarre writing style, inability to accept new ideas and more don't give the best impression off a race of polymaths.

    As a few more things with Panda, you've been repeatedly claiming all chinese average very high IQ's. I'm not sure how it's far off to get from you that diaspora chinese are represenative (or is this something about inland chinese being the smarest?), and CNN (you have a grudge against them too clearly) claimed they're represenative. Unless you think the CNN articles all claimed they're all of mediocre/low IQ and only seem smart because of cheating, cramming etc.

    If you really want to see something like that, check out this post, from someone who ultimately alludes to east asians having significantly lower IQ's than whites (which is crazy, but you might find it interesting): http://mpcdot.com/forums/topic/4163-plagiarized-effortpost-on-studyasians/#entry182899

    And really, what do you think the average chinese IQ really is? It's clearly not 100 or even the unbelievable 105-108 that HBDers often trot out. Is it 115? 120? 130? 150? 200? Beyond what any IQ test can measure?

    Finally, your reason for why the chinese have always been supergeniuses is because they've always had the most fertile landmass. Not that this made them smarter, that it introduced conditions that would allow them to enrich themselves, but the very fact they had this to begin with is why they were smarter.
    So chinese supergenius dates even before then? Damn, those ice age climates must have been more demanding than the biggest HBD weirdo ever fathomed! (But I doubt you'd accept siberians and inuits as being smarter than the chinese). And you'd then have to ask about things like the fact the Chinese are in reality a large amalgamation of ethnic groups with mixing dating back millenia, with large amounts of gene flow from southeast asia and elsewhere, that places with large amounts of Chinese admixture (much of southeast asia, including the Philippines) are in general ways even more backwards and unproductive than mainland China etc. But who knows- it could just be be beyond the comprehension of us laowai, simple as that.

    Oh, and european achievement extends well before the settling of the US. Like all the way to ancient Greece. And even in more ancient times, you could look to the renaissance a few centuries before and really throughout the middle ages. And how the US broke off from Britain. And the fact the industrial revolution began in Britain. And that american colonialism was in major ways never that beneficial to European powers. And that places like Germany, even in the modern era, produced immense scientific, cultural etc. achievements even though their colonial empire has been marginal. And that large parts of the US weren't even settled in substantial numbers until quite recently. And the US' achievements have generally been from a few areas. And that European achivement is disproportionately due to a relatively few number of countries.

    For all your trump up the Chinese being ahead because of their territory, don't you think it's kind of strange how for all of it's territory, it's historically large populations and long history and organization and such, the Chinese have been proportionately underperforming? They've been ahead at various points, but when you look at not just Europe, but many other civilizations that have produced remarkable accomplishments, have had generally much smaller populations. And no, I'm really not partial to the ideas of east asians being so uncreative, ultra-conformist, devoid of individuality etc., but if you want to go to this length, I don't think China's historical accomplishment is as impressive in face of it's population size and more.

    Just curious, but what do you think of Charles Murray's "Human Accomplishment?" I think many people misconstrue his work, because it's clearly about just a relatively small number of European countries, who didn't begin to really shine until the past several centuries (though Jayman couldn't help weaseling how northwest europe stacks up in this post) among other things, but I don't think his figures are that far off from reality.

    Oh, and India is a very fertile, comfortable country too- they have a similar population to China, and historically have been highly achieving too. But they're even worse off, and are probably of lower IQ than China, among other things.

    And finally, I love the dig about the "Anglon-Saxon's extremely invasive culture"- because China has never had imperial ambitions, in the past (like Vietnam and much of southeast asia) or even now, or exporting their culture to surrounding regions, or that such a thing is so alien to any nationalist/supremacist maniac. On top of shameless racial supremacy, you couldn't help throw in some time-worn white guilt.

    That’s enough you two. Further comments on the back and forth between the two of you will be deleted.

    Read More
  116. @JayMan
    That's enough you two. Further comments on the back and forth between the two of you will be deleted.

    Show ‘em who’s boss, Chanda!

    Read More
  117. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @hbd chick

    Re: The Hajnal line (which you did not mention) however, there seems to be similar mating behaviors among some Indians … would that be due to the common Indo European ancestry?
     
    the traditional marriage pattern that john hajnal discovered -- i.e. that (north)western europeans have for a very long time (since the medieval period) tended to marry late, a good percentage not at all, and to live in nuclear families -- has, to date, not been found anywhere else in the world (although many societies have begun to adopt these practices in modern times). there's a reason it's known as the western european marriage pattern. pretty sure there aren't any similar behaviors among any indian groups.

    even if there were, though, they wouldn't be due to any common indo-european ancestry, since the set of practices in northwest europe developed during the middle ages and was connected to bipartite manorialism. in other words, these are not some ancient traditions that go back thousands of years. for more on this, see michael mitterauer's Why Europe?. (^_^)

    These days I see much genetic influence on behavior and much less to do with tradition.

    The middle ages seems too recent for R = H^2 * S.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    The middle ages seems too recent for R = H^2 * S.
     
    Two words: Ashkenazi Jews.
  118. @The most deplorable one
    These days I see much genetic influence on behavior and much less to do with tradition.

    The middle ages seems too recent for R = H^2 * S.

    The middle ages seems too recent for R = H^2 * S.

    Two words: Ashkenazi Jews.

    Read More
  119. […] like me have to write anonymous blogs and columns on the internet when talking about the obvious reality of human biological differences (especially biological group differences)? Why do researchers face […]

    Read More
  120. Jayman,

    So based on your brain size theory we are to assume that if we have a group of Africans with large brains and a group of Europeans with small brains, the Africans will be innately more intelligent than the Europeans.

    Okay, got it.

    HBD. LOL.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    Maybe not you.

    You understand the concept of a correlation, right?

  121. @Okechukwu
    Jayman,

    So based on your brain size theory we are to assume that if we have a group of Africans with large brains and a group of Europeans with small brains, the Africans will be innately more intelligent than the Europeans.

    Okay, got it.

    HBD. LOL.

    Maybe not you.

    You understand the concept of a correlation, right?

    Read More
  122. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    JayMan,

    it’s “susceptible”, not “susceptable”.

    This lowers your estimated verbal IQ from 154.64 to 154.18

    Bad news for you :)

    Read More
  123. Slander, ad hominem and projection are some of the oldest, most natural and most common means of fighting against revelations that threaten one’s cherished and long-held beliefs. This has been well demonstrated in this article. One of the most interesting observations about this article is that while the author scourges a scholar (whose work is always characterized by an almost obsessive commitment to rigour and detail) as being ‘shallow’ and ‘sketchy’ in his coverage of a topic, he does so in a way that is transparently handwavy, superficial and propagandistic, merely throwing around scientific names and phrases that supposedly embody concepts and topics he claims the scholar doesn’t know or understand without bothering to outline or even describe how the scholar supposedly misused or omitted those topics and what relevance they have to his argument.

    This modern phenomenon we call ‘racism’ is very much a religion…a psychological and emotional religion that has its adherents by the millions in the western world though predominantly in America. Like most religions, it owes its existence largely if not entirely to emotional need and wishful thinking; in this case, the need to believe that one belongs to a special and inherently superior social group relative to another social group. The very self-conception and self-esteem of its adherence depends this belief being ‘true’. Thus, when they are confronted with facts and logic that expose their cherished ideas as ‘a pile of baloney’, like adherents of most religions, they react with utmost indignation and venom, lashing back in the only way they can; by flinging strawmen, non-sequiturs, projections, ad-hominem, red red-herrings and so on at the offender. It also helps to characterize the offender (with adjectives) as the opposite of what he clearly is. Another effective tactic against the irritating bearers of truth and reason: denial and reversal.

    This article is a fine specimen of this sad property of human nature.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    Slander, ad hominem and projection are some of the oldest, most natural and most common means of fighting against revelations that threaten one’s cherished and long-held beliefs. This has been well demonstrated in this article. One of the most interesting observations about this article is that while the author scourges a scholar (whose work is always characterized by an almost obsessive commitment to rigour and detail) as being ‘shallow’ and ‘sketchy’ in his coverage of a topic, he does so in a way that is transparently handwavy, superficial and propagandistic, merely throwing around scientific names and phrases that supposedly embody concepts and topics he claims the scholar doesn’t know or understand without bothering to outline or even describe how the scholar supposedly misused or omitted those topics and what relevance they have to his argument.
     
    You better detail exactly where and how I'm error. A response that fails to do so may result in instant banning.
  124. I just saw your ‘article’ titled “Clannishness”. It truly is remarkable that you can be flinging such labels like “nonsense” and “garbage” towards Chisala’s (far superior, well researched and intellectually honest) articles when you create ‘articles’ filled with such laughable, simple-minded, rehashed and repackaged pseudo-scientific racist garbage. Recycling the dishonest works of racial propagandists and distributing material that amounts to nothing other than 21st century phrenological pseudoscience seems to be a hobby of yours. It is no wonder you were so upset and angered by Chisala’s brilliant articles. I can now understand where the venom evident in the tone of this article towards him comes from. Like i said above, racism is a highly emotionally predicated religion that nourishes and pleasures the self-conception and self-esteem of its adherents. But it is also dependent on simple-minded and irrational thinking (like most religions).

    A few remarks on some of the repackaged nonsense you presented on this very article in which you pretend to be challenging Chisala’s theory on resistance to epigenetic effects. There are a few things one needs to explain to you: First of all, showing that some populations do not appear to be affected (much) by environmental insults does not in any mean that other populations are not. That is the crucial point. Interestingly, people like you have a habit of routinely ignoring the fact that many other populations around the world that are subsets of the ‘caucasian’ and ‘mongoloid’ genetic groups score relatively low on IQ tests just as ‘black’ populations do. The fact that certain subsets like the Chinese in particular seem to maintain a consistent performance on such tests for whatever reason does not erase the fact that environmental effects are real.

    Furthermore, people like you routinely throw around this trope about average brain sizes varying across ‘races’ as though that itself were enough to explain the massive difference that you race religionists like to claim exists blacks and whites. What you don’t seem to know (or tend to ignore) is that these differences in average brain size actually account for no more than a tiny fraction (less than 5%) of IQ difference. You also told a blatant lie when you said that the brain size differences among races is greater than the differences within races. The truth is the exact opposite. There is far greater variation in sizes within races than among races, and a considerable overlap between races.

    As for these so-called differences in brain structures you presented, this is clearly another one of these fringe pseudo-scientific garbage that the race-religionists love to conjure out of thin air. Incidentally, do you know that brain structure differences were discovered during the 70s from similar investigations carried out in the Caribbeans and it turned out that black Carribeans had superior cognitive brain structures than mixed or caucasian ones (the opposite of what they expected to find)? Of course, that research and its results were swept under the rug of history and never shown to the wider community. But the real point is that this kind of ‘research’ people like you love to pander are classic examples of circular reasoning and question begging. You start with a claim that certain social groups are intellectually inferior to others. Then you go to great lengths to ‘identify’ certain brain structures that appear to be common in some groups and not in others. Then you assert that you have ‘proven’ that differences in brain structures are consistent with the notion of intellectual differences. You never seem to realize the fallacy of this kind of nonsense. (Ironically and remarkably, people like you nowadays also have a bizarre tendency to glorify the archaic neanderthals as being intelligent – even MORE intelligent – than homo sapiens based on nothing other than just the fact that it was discovered that you, and not black peole, have a tiny amount of their genes. This is how laughably pretentious, shallow and hypocritical the discourse of these race-religionists is. And its all based on nothing more than the need for self-esteem.)

    Read More
  125. @Ajani
    Slander, ad hominem and projection are some of the oldest, most natural and most common means of fighting against revelations that threaten one's cherished and long-held beliefs. This has been well demonstrated in this article. One of the most interesting observations about this article is that while the author scourges a scholar (whose work is always characterized by an almost obsessive commitment to rigour and detail) as being 'shallow' and 'sketchy' in his coverage of a topic, he does so in a way that is transparently handwavy, superficial and propagandistic, merely throwing around scientific names and phrases that supposedly embody concepts and topics he claims the scholar doesn't know or understand without bothering to outline or even describe how the scholar supposedly misused or omitted those topics and what relevance they have to his argument.

    This modern phenomenon we call 'racism' is very much a religion...a psychological and emotional religion that has its adherents by the millions in the western world though predominantly in America. Like most religions, it owes its existence largely if not entirely to emotional need and wishful thinking; in this case, the need to believe that one belongs to a special and inherently superior social group relative to another social group. The very self-conception and self-esteem of its adherence depends this belief being 'true'. Thus, when they are confronted with facts and logic that expose their cherished ideas as 'a pile of baloney', like adherents of most religions, they react with utmost indignation and venom, lashing back in the only way they can; by flinging strawmen, non-sequiturs, projections, ad-hominem, red red-herrings and so on at the offender. It also helps to characterize the offender (with adjectives) as the opposite of what he clearly is. Another effective tactic against the irritating bearers of truth and reason: denial and reversal.

    This article is a fine specimen of this sad property of human nature.

    Slander, ad hominem and projection are some of the oldest, most natural and most common means of fighting against revelations that threaten one’s cherished and long-held beliefs. This has been well demonstrated in this article. One of the most interesting observations about this article is that while the author scourges a scholar (whose work is always characterized by an almost obsessive commitment to rigour and detail) as being ‘shallow’ and ‘sketchy’ in his coverage of a topic, he does so in a way that is transparently handwavy, superficial and propagandistic, merely throwing around scientific names and phrases that supposedly embody concepts and topics he claims the scholar doesn’t know or understand without bothering to outline or even describe how the scholar supposedly misused or omitted those topics and what relevance they have to his argument.

    You better detail exactly where and how I’m error. A response that fails to do so may result in instant banning.

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All JayMan Comments via RSS