The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewJames Thompson Archive
Experts, Intelligence, Race
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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

For some years now I have made occasional mention of a survey conducted in May 2013 to March 2014 to find out what intelligence researchers thought about racial differences in intelligence. Now the paper has been published, so in academic terms the work actually exists, and can be quoted and commented upon. I can remember looking at the draft of this survey, suggesting it be made shorter, which is what I always say. Long surveys lead to low return rates. When it finally came out, I’m not sure exactly how I answered it, but will give my best recollections in this post. Academia makes a tradition out of slowness: the last survey on this matter was in 1988. By this reckoning the next survey will be in 2052. No need to rush things.

Survey of expert opinion on intelligence: Intelligence research, experts’ background, controversial issues, and the media. Heiner Rindermann, David Becker, Thomas R. Coyle. Intelligence 78 (2020) 101406
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2019.101406

Abstract
Experts (N max = 102 answering) on intelligence completed a survey about IQ research, controversies, and the media. The survey was conducted in 2013 and 2014 using the Internet-based Expert Questionnaire on Cognitive Ability (EQCA). In the current study, we examined the background of the experts (e.g., nationality, gender, religion, and political orientation) and their positions on intelligence research, controversial issues, and the media. Most experts were male (83%) and from Western countries (90%). Political affiliations ranged from the left (liberal, 54%) to the right (conservative, 24%), with more extreme responses within the left-liberal spectrum. Experts rated the media and public debates as far below adequate. Experts with a left (liberal, progressive) political orientation were more likely to have positive views of the media (around r= |.30|). In contrast, compared to female and left (liberal) experts, male and right (conservative) experts were more likely to endorse the validity of IQ testing (correlations with gender, politics: r= .55, .41), the g factor theory of intelligence (r= .18, .34), and the impact of genes on US Black-White differences (r= .50, .48). The paper compares the results to those of prior expert surveys and discusses the role of experts’ backgrounds, with a focus on political orientation and gender. An underrepresentation of viewpoints associated with experts’ background characteristics (i.e., political views, gender) may distort research findings and should be addressed in higher education policy.

As you can see, the paper confronts the politics/attitudes nexus head on. The popular view is that political orientations determine attitudes to scientific findings: find the author’s politics and you can predict and also discount their opinions. On the contrary, author’s observations of life may determine their politics, and in fairness you can equally argue that once you find the author’s observations and experiences you should discount their politics.

Who were the experts?

The survey was sent to authors who published at least one article after 2010 in journals covering cognitive ability. The journals included Intelligence, Cognitive Psychology, Contemporary Educational Psychology, New Ideas in Psychology, and Learning and Individual Differences. In addition, members of the International Society for Intelligence Research (ISIR) were invited (from December 2013 toJanuary 2014) to complete the EQCA, and an announcement was published on the website of the International Society for the Study of Individual Differences (ISSID).

A total of 265 responses were received, which produced a response rate of 19.71% from those approached for an opinion. This is not very good. The survey was long, which may have put people off, and since it asked about contentious matters, experts may have felt it was best avoided. As you may note later below, less than half of those who replied answered the item on racial differences in intelligence. They may have worried that the personal responses would leak out in some way.

The respondents have a claim to expertise. Their academic work was better than the scholarly average, so they probably know their subject. They were somewhat Left inclined, and this had an impact on questions like the contribution genetics makes to black-white differences. 16% of experts reported a 100% environmental explanation, whereas 6% reported a 100% genetic explanation. This group leans left in general, and is more extremely left on this particular issue. (For the record, I find it hard to argue for either of these extreme positions. My recollection is that I was in the 50:50 camp). Psychologists are generally very Left inclined, and intelligence researchers somewhat Left inclined.

According to Duarte et al. (2015, their Fig. 1), the leftward tilt in psychology emerged over the last three decades, leading to a 14:1 ratio of left (progressive, democratic) to right (conservative, republican) psychology faculty. More recent data show an even larger disparity (16.8:1, Langbert, 2018). The leftward drift is reinforced by a liberal bias among journalists (e.g., Groseclose & Milyo, 2005; Kuypers, 2002; Lichter, Rothman, & Lichter, 1986) and in Wikipedia (e.g., Greenstein & Zhu, 2012, 2018). In addition, there have been increasing disruptions and attacks against scientists with a perceived right orientation at university talks (e.g., Duarte et al., 2015; HXA Executive Team et al., 2018; Inbar & Lammers, 2012; Jussim, 2018). Student groups have interrupted lectures, courses, and invited talks, and in some cases violently attacked scientists and scholars with a perceived right orientation (e.g., Charles Murray; Arm, 2016; Beinart, 2017). Finally, these events parallel a growing political divide between progressive and conservative factions in the US and other countries (Pew Research Center, 2017, p. 7f.). In the Pew survey, the gap between Democrats and Republicans in the US grew (in 10 political domains) from an average of 14.9% in 1994 to 35.8% in 2017, an increase of 20.9%. 20.8% of this increase (or 99.5% of the growth) was due to a shift to the left by Democrats, whereas 0.1% was due to a shift to the right by Republicans.

Of course, if our science is worth anything, none of this should matter. Leftists should follow the facts, and where the weight of evidence supports a conclusion, they should back that conclusion. Rightists should likewise follow the evidence. As James Flynn says, science should be allowed to do its work.

Respondents are not very religious, but are socially liberal, and lean Left.


Rinderman et al. worry that

Political bias impacts selection of research topics, decisions by Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) to perform studies, funding of studies, interpretation of research, publication of research, reception and citation of studies, and promotion of researchers, all of which distorts the scientific process and perceptions about science. Jussim described such bias for the specific example of research on stereotypes resulting in limited support for research on stereotype accuracy, which usually confirms the accuracy of stereotypes about group differences. Despite receiving limited attention in science and the media, stereotype accuracy has been replicated in independent studies, reported in preregistered studies, and published in diverse outlets (e.g., Ashton & Esses, 1999; Johnson & Wilson, 2019; Jussim, 2012; Kirkegaard & Bjerrekær, 2016).

In other words, psychologists are against public attitudes they classify as being biased stereotypes. They are less keen to admit that many stereotypes are probably true, and well supported by evidence. They have a bias to show that members of the public are biased, even when they are simply observing actual differences between people. This is an example of a bias within psychological research. I agree that this is the case, and that it is lamentable, but I don’t think that the answer lies in getting more Conservatives into psychology. People should be free to choose their occupations.

In the original survey, Snyderman and Rothman (1988) found that journalists were more likely than experts to favour non-genetic explanations, endorse test bias, and identify with the political left. 76% of science magazine editors identified as extremely or very liberal, compared to 45% of journalists and 32% of intelligence experts. This suggests that Left leaning psychologists (the majority) find their conclusions get a better reception and more publicity from Left leaning science reporters (the majority).

Experts differed according to their backgrounds as to how they rated social and political issues:

Compared to right-conservative experts, left-progressive experts favored a specific abilities perspective, favored environmental explanations for Black-White IQ gaps, assumed more bias in testing, and were against IQ in immigration policies. In contrast, experts with a right-conservative perspective showed a “right tilt,” which was associated with the opposite pattern (i.e., favoring the g factor, favoring genetic explanations for Black-White IQ gaps, assuming less bias in testing, favoring IQ in immigration policies).
[]
In sum, the political orientation and gender of experts were the most important factors in explaining the observed (but not always large) heterogeneity among expert opinions on intelligence research.

Experts believe that research should be published, not suppressed to gain peace and quiet. They value the work of Carroll, Bouchard, Deary, Jensen and Plomin.

The allegation that people hold a particular view about the genetics of intelligence merely because, say, they are old, conservative men is, by that token, refuted because the objection comes from, say, young, liberal women. This line of argument gets nowhere, since it assumes that personal identity is all, that facts don’t matter, indeed, that there are no facts other than those created by persons with different attitudes (some reprehensible, some desirable). On this argument, we cannot tell what can be seen through a telescope until we can see into the political minds of the astronomers. A contrary view is that better methods lead to better measures, shown to be so by lower errors and by reproducible results. Like Einstein, we should always be proposing ways in which our theories could be proven wrong.

Rinderman et al. are not downcast. They note that when the research literature is fairly clear, then there is general agreement.

In the current study, questions with clear empirical results (in the scientific literature) generally yielded similar answers for males and females, whose opinions were consistent with the scientific literature (e.g., few reports of IQ test bias). In contrast, intelligence research yields more ambiguous results for other research questions, which have no clear answers in the scientific literature (e.g., group differences in heritability). Such questions generally showed more variability in EQCA responses, including differences between males and females on the heritability of US White-Black IQ differences.

For example, the g model of intelligence was backed by 58% of experts in 1988 and by 76% of experts in 2014.

Have opinions about racial differences changed since 1988? In those 26 years there has been an increase in the willingness to ascribe intelligence differences to genetic causes.

You will see that there are some hardliners who believe that black/white differences are entirely environmental, and some (fewer) hardliners who who believe them to be entirely genetic in origin. There are peaks at 50% and 80%. The 50:50 judgment is a popular compromise. The 80% figure is more interesting, because it was the percentage that Jensen (and Rushton) inclined towards in their 2005 review of the literature, or at least mentioned as being possible. Some researchers may regard this as a prediction.

A controversial topic is the cause of past and current US Black-White differences in IQ test results. In the IQSC survey (Snyderman & Rothman, 1988), a plurality (45%) of experts noted the influence of both genetic and environmental factors. In contrast, monocausal positions (i.e., genetic or environmental) were rare but were much more likely to be environmental (15%) than genetic (1%; Snyderman & Rothman, 1988, p. 128). In the current study, EQCA experts were asked what percentage of the US Black-White differences in IQ is, in their view, due to environment or genes. In general, EQCA experts gave a 50–50 (50% genes, 50% environment) response with a slight tilt to the environmental position (51% vs. 49%; Table 3). When EQCA experts were classified into discrete categories (genetic, environmental, or 50–50), 40% favored an environmental position, 43% a genetic position, and 17% assumed 50–50. The difference in the average versus discrete results may seem contradictory (average results tilted to the environment and discrete categories tilted to genes), except when extreme positions are considered. 16% of experts who favored an environmental perspective assumed a 100% environmental position, whereas only 6% of experts who favored a genetic perspective assumed a 100% genetic position (Fig. 3). That is, the opinion of “environmentalists” was more extreme than the opinion of “geneticists.”

There has been some progress, in the sense that more experts are willing to agree that genetics is involved in the intellectual differences between genetic groups. The most extreme position, in the sense of experts betting the house on an extreme judgment, is held by environmentalists. I can’t see how either extreme position could be held, but will listen to the arguments as more data come in.

This is a good study which reveals important findings about contentious subjects. If it was to be done again, I would make the survey far shorter, repeating the key questions, and ensuring that respondents were allowed different options to anonymize their responses, in addition to the anonymization offered by the authors of the study. I would also hope that it would be published soon after the data having been collected. However, academic life is full of demands, and not every piece of research can reach the public promptly. Roll on 2052.

 
Hide 304 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Imagine being an “expert” in something that (a) is not validated (IQ tests) (b) lacks a formal definition and (c) is biased against difference races/classes (for an exposition on a, b, and c, see Mensh and Mensh, 1991, The IQ Mythology).

  2. @RaceRealist88

    I will make the claim that the black-white gap is 100 percent environmental and, as evidence, cite Fagan and Holland (2002, 2007). They showed that when blacks and whites were equally exposed to each item that the gap disappeared. This, again, goes back to test construction and the assumptions of the test’s designers.

    In 1916, Terman thought that the sexes should be equal on his test and removed and added items until his assumption was shown on the test. All tests follow the same process of item elimination and adding that was followed during Binet’s original tests. This is clear admission from the designers themselves that differences in test scores can be removed/changed with different assumptions. (Also note that there is no theory of item inclusion, it’s arbitrary, up to the test constructors.)

    Nevermind the fact that hereditarians don’t even have a definition of race (Levin, 1997; Rushton, 1997; Eysenck, 1998). Jensen (1998: 425) tried:

    A race is one of a number of statistically distinguishable groups in which individual membership is not mutually exclusive by any single criterion, and individuals in a given group differ only statistically from one another and from the group’s central tendency on each of the many imperfectly correlated genetic characteristics that distinguish between groups as such.

    But the argument ends up being:

    “Genetic differences between groups exist, therefore the groups are races” and not “If races exist, there are genetic differences between them” (see Fish, 2002: 6 in Race and Intelligence: Separating Science from Myth).

    Without a formal definition for the hereditarian stance on what race is, along with a definition of intelligence and validity for the tests that supposedly test it, then the hereditarian enterprise crumbles.

  3. res says:
    @RaceRealist88

    I will make the claim that the black-white gap is 100 percent environmental

    Always good to be clear about things. Easier to tell when you are wrong that way. Any thoughts on differing frequencies between races for intelligence SNPs? Given that, the 100% environmental position seems untenable to me.

    Fagan and Holland (2007) is available on Libgen. Here are some thoughts on it from Emil: https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?p=7102

    The two primary issues I see are:
    1. It looks like each of the substudies involves students from the same site. So selection effects are an issue. As is restriction of range.
    2. As Emil discusses, their correction is based on subtests focusing on information. Those subtests just happen to be correlated with g and coincidentally show typical B/W gaps in the Fagan results. So after you correct for that, voila, no remaining gap.

    If that’s your idea of of compelling evidence… enough said.

    P.S. Fish (2002) is available at Libgen as ISBN 0-8058-3757-4
    Perhaps you would care to give an excerpt you find particularly compelling?

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
    , @RaceRealist88
  4. Anonymous[370] • Disclaimer says:
    @RaceRealist88

    Theses are shit studies and aren’t in any ways conclusive, the items are strange and the oddof geting theses results within an hereditarian hypothesis aren’t really lower as theses result can just be for example episodic memory advantage or the g loading etc. The explanation are basically, and the hypothesis hasn’t been prooved in any other study.
    And iq aren’t biaised against class, see odenstad et al 2008 and mcgue et al 2007

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  5. Anonymous[370] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    edit :
    Theses are shit studies and aren’t in any ways conclusive, the items are strange and the oddof geting theses results within an hereditarian hypothesis aren’t really lower as theses result can just be for example episodic memory advantage or the g loading etc. The explanation are basically that information differ but it can just be that the items are easier and also this hypotesis hasn’t been proved in any study, and the hypothesis hasn’t been prooved in any other study.

    And iq aren’t biaised against class, see odenstad et al 2008 and mcgue et al 2007 and theses differences are genetically mediated (A RUSTICHINI – ‎2018)

  6. Okechukwu says:
    @res

    Folks, here’s another moron who isn’t a geneticist and has no training in genetics but is certain that genetics play a role in alleged group IQ differences.

    Then the clown goes on to confidently assert black/white differences in intelligence-related SNPs in favor of whites, which is a complete fantasy informed by his racism. Nobel Laureate geneticists haven’t established this finding. But the neophyte racist joker Res has. LMAO.

    • Replies: @res
    , @Eduardo
    , @Batsense
    , @Bigby
  7. Theodore says:

    So only a small minority of “experts” believe that the Black-White IQ gap is entirely environmental in origin. Well, no surprise there. It’s a totally ridiculous position to take. Reasons to believe the IQ gap between Whites and Blacks is largely a result of genetic differences:
    – regression to different means
    – different frequency of alleles linked to cognitive ability
    – lower IQ of blacks raised in high income environments compared to poor whites
    – blacks and whites at the same IQ level score differently on IQ subtests
    – interracial adoption studies show blacks scoring below mulattoes who self identify as fully black, who score below whites, despite all being adopted into similar environments
    – 100% consensus on every study measuring black and white brain sizes, finding blacks have smaller brains
    – the gap has remained relatively stable for a century despite social disparities narrowing considerably
    – literally 0 experiments showing randomly selected black median IQ being raised to 100 with gains stable into adulthood
    – egalitarians have only offered “theories” with no tangible support for their position. they prefer to cling to those that can’t be quantified, proven or disproven

    • Agree: Anatman
    • Replies: @res
    , @Okechukwu
  8. res says:
    @Anonymous

    theses differences are genetically mediated (A RUSTICHINI – ‎2018)

    Can you elaborate on this? Is this the paper you mean? https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jel.20161260
    If so, where does it say that?

    P.S. Are these the other two papers you cite?
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17279339
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18307828
    Emil’s take on the latter: https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?p=5663

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  9. res says:
    @Okechukwu

    Folks, here’s another moron who isn’t a geneticist and has no training in genetics but is certain that genetics play a role in alleged group IQ differences.

    Although I am not a geneticist, I do have some training in genetics. Starting with a gifted program in high school. Among the more recent instances was a class which I thought was particular appropriate for the discussions here: https://www.coursera.org/learn/behavioralgenetics

    Then there is all of the reading (both textbooks and research literature) I have done on the topic.

    How about you, Okechukwu? What is your background in this area?

    If a real geneticist wants to engage with with me on matters of fact here, then great. But your appeals to authority, FUD, and ad hominem attacks are tiresome.

    BTW, “alleged group IQ differences” is quite funny. As if there is a shortage of measurements demonstrating group differences in average phenotypic IQ.

    confidently assert black/white differences in intelligence-related SNPs in favor of whites

    Actually not what I said. I just observed that there were different frequencies in IQ SNPs between groups. Of course Davide Piffer’s work does show the trend is as you say.
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332076417_Evidence_for_Recent_Polygenic_Selection_on_Educational_Attainment_and_Intelligence_Inferred_from_Gwas_Hits_A_Replication_of_Previous_Findings_Using_Recent_Data

    P.S. And what happened to not replying to me? I love the way you display the willpower of a three year old who failed the marshmallow test.

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  10. Anonymous[370] • Disclaimer says:
    @res

    Yes i’m citing theses two, for the first i was citing https://experts.umn.edu/en/publications/polygenic-score-analysis-of-educational-achievement-and-intergene
    it show page 46 a significant correlation between both parent PGS and family income (r=0,225, p<0.0001)
    page 49 it show a correlation of 0.194 between child pgs and income

  11. Okechukwu says:
    @Theodore

    So only a small minority of “experts” believe that the Black-White IQ gap is entirely environmental in origin.

    As you believe this is a valid survey, it would appear you’re even dumber than I thought. And I already thought you were as dumb as can be.

    In a legal proceeding, this junk would be dismissed in the discovery stage, and the offending attorney would be sanctioned for wasting the court’s time with bullshit.

  12. They have a bias to show that members of the public are biased, even when they are simply observing actual differences between people.

    The facts of one person are the bias for the other. – That reminds me of the sociologist and politician Lord Ralf Dahrendorf’s remark about populism: Populist is always the success of your political opponent (or enemy even…).

  13. Okechukwu says:
    @res

    This is all fake junk, Res. And I’m definitely not the first to tell you that. Present it at a scientific conference anywhere in the world and men in white coats will come and take you away.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @res
  14. Anonymous[370] • Disclaimer says:
    @Okechukwu

    are you a parody account, because you look like a strawman position.

  15. @Okechukwu

    Don’t underestimate bullshit though. Bullshit is very helpful to grow cabbage. – And if I think of cabbage, I think of heads – see: I’m still in the realm of psychology – and even intelligence here. Since intelligence is inside heads – and that’s again the cause with cabbage too: The quality of the cabbage-head is always stored – inside of it, – exactly like human intelligence – – – it too is – inside of our heads, isn’t it? – And this is all true, no matter if we look at pointed or red, white or yellow cabbage.

  16. Theodore says:
    @Okechukwu

    Where did I claim it was a valid survey? I would never claim that truth is derived by a polling of experts.

    You’re not a judge of what would happen in a legal proceeding. You’re a pathological liar and believe anything you want to believe. Try refuting anything I have ever posted without resorting to a fallacious argument. Come on, just one thing 🙂

  17. res says:
    @Okechukwu

    The thing that is funny here is that you don’t even realize that graphic is derived from two well respected pieces of work.
    – The 1000 Genomes Project https://www.internationalgenome.org/
    – The Lee et al. (2018) EDU PGS https://www.nature.com/articles/s41588-018-0147-3

    Piffer just put them together to create that graphic. More on this at
    https://rpubs.com/Daxide/395866

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  18. Okechukwu says:
    @res

    Piffer is a joker, Res. White people do not have more intelligence-related SNPs than black people. You want that outcome so desperately that you’ll accept a “study” written in crayon as proof.

    Do not make an extraordinary claim like this and then provide a clown like Piffer as your evidence. Real and credible geneticists aren’t in hiding. In fact my wife is one. Get them to support your position and then I’ll believe it.

    • Replies: @res
  19. @Anonymous

    Well I don’t know about the races, but by the quality of your writing I would judge you belong in the retard category.

    • Agree: Okechukwu
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @idealogus
  20. @res

    “Any thoughts on differing frequencies between races for intelligence SNPs?”

    The claim reduces to “genes influence/cause differences in thinking”—which is a tall order to prove. Can you do this?

    “Fagan and Holland (2007) is available on Libgen. Here are some thoughts on it from Emil”

    The lone argument I could identify is nonsense.

    That access to information is independently available to anyone who wants to search for it is not a critique of the paper.

    And Spearman’s hypothesis was debunked decades ago. See eg Schonemann.

    “As Emil discusses, their correction is based on subtests focusing on information. Those subtests just happen to be correlated with g and coincidentally show typical B/W gaps in the Fagan results. So after you correct for that, voila, no remaining gap.”

    Is ‘g’ a real ‘thing’ in the brain, like Herrnstein and Murray claim (one of them, anyway)?

    “P.S. Fish (2002) is available at Libgen as ISBN 0-8058-3757-4
    Perhaps you would care to give an excerpt you find particularly compelling?”

    I just did in my previous comment, that’s from page 6. Hereditarians assume that races exist, and don’t give an argument for their existence; “genetic differences between groups exist therefore the groups are races” is a poor argument.

    No hereditarian that I’ve ever read has any arguments for the existence of race like Hardimon (2017) and Spencer (2014, 2019). That is troubling for the hereditarian hypothesis—nevermind no definition of what intelligence is nor evidence for construct validity.

    • Replies: @res
  21. @Anonymous

    “Theses are shit studies and aren’t in any ways conclusive, the items are strange and the oddof geting theses results within an hereditarian hypothesis aren’t really lower as theses result can just be for example episodic memory advantage or the g loading etc.”

    Tests that rely on crystallized intelligence show the biggest black-white gap but F and H showed it disappeared when both groups were exposed to the items. Why is that?

    Are the cited studies the adoption studies res provided? If so, why should I accept those conclusions? Is the Rustichini paper available? How does that provide evidence for your contention?

    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    , @Anonymous
  22. @RaceRealist88

    Further, you need to understand how these tests are constructed.

    (1) The normal distribution is assumed. Items are selected to conform with the normal curve after the fact by trying out a whole slew of items for which Jensen (1998) states “emerge arbitrarily from the heads of test constructors.” Items that show little correlation with the testers’ expectations are removed. Simon (1997) and Richardson (2017) also discuss the myth of the normal distribution and how its constructed by IQ test-makers.

    (2) Candidate items are administered to a sample and to be selected for the final test, the question must establish the scoring norm for the whole group, along with subtest norms which is supposed to replicate when the test is released for general use. So an item must play the role in creating a distribution of scores which places each subgroup in its predetermined place on the (artifact of test construction) normal curve.

    Andrew Strenio, author of The Testing Trap notes that:

    “We look at individual questions and see how many people get them right and which people get them right. … We consciously and deliberately select questions so that the kind of people who scored low on the pretest will score low on subsequent tests. We do the same for middle or high scorers. We are imposing our will on the outcome.” (pg 95)

    Obviously the only way testers can impose their will on the outcome is by choosing which items are biased against certain groups of people which then conforms to their prior assumptions as to kinds of people should be high, middle, or low scorers.

    This is why I brought up what I did about Terman earlier—the IQ-ists outright tell us that they have these assumptions and that they build the tests to conform to those assumptions. This is why I claim that the black-white gap is environmental, not “genetic” in nature. (Nevermind the a priori arguments.)

    • Agree: utu
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  23. res says:
    @Okechukwu

    Piffer makes his data available based on the two sources I noted. If you think that graphic is incorrect how about you go prove it? Or get your wife to, since I suspect you aren’t bright enough to even make an attempt.

    At this point one of the most interesting things about Piffer’s work is that I have yet to see one of those geneticists you keep going on about provide a cogent rebuttal. Pro tip: calling someone a “joker” does not constitute a rebuttal. But I realize that is the best you’ve got, so carry on.

    • Replies: @Oliver D. Smith
  24. res says:
    @RaceRealist88

    The claim reduces to “genes influence/cause differences in thinking”—which is a tall order to prove. Can you do this?

    Can you prove the opposite? The genome is sufficient to cause the differences between apes and humans. I think that more than encompasses what you are asking for.

    And Spearman’s hypothesis was debunked decades ago. See eg Schonemann.

    Here is one response to Schonemann: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26761613

    I just did in my previous comment, that’s from page 6. Hereditarians assume that races exist, and don’t give an argument for their existence; “genetic differences between groups exist therefore the groups are races” is a poor argument.

    OK. I went and looked at that in context. I guess we are just ignoring millenia of humans observing differences between groups. “Race” was a concept well before we even knew about genetics. Though genetics does provide a convenient and much more precise way of thinking about races.

    • Replies: @Half-Jap
    , @RaceRealist88
  25. I’d suggest looking at the other Rindermann survey that shows as an average experts estimate cross-national between-group heritability: ~0.17. This is far lower than what is being shown here for B-W.

    “experts attributed about one-sixth to one-fifth of international ability differences to genes (cross-national: 16.99%)
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4804158/

    At ~0.17 that is far below what Jensen, Lynn, Rushton etc estimated for BGH., so the expert majority view on this certainly doesn’t support the hereditarian hypothesis (Jensenism) but either moderate hereditarianism or environmentalism.

    The environmentalist view was never strictly 0.00.

    • Replies: @res
    , @Eduardo
  26. @res

    The graphic is useless since Piffer appears to have used IQ-data from Lynn and Vanhanen and Lynn and Meisenberg. There’s no way those SSA countries are that low in IQ, putting some in the “mental retardation” range.

    The majority of studies on IQ test performance of Africans not taken into account by Lynn (and Vanhanen) and Malloy showed considerably higher average IQs than the studies that they did review. We judge the reviews of Lynn (and Vanhanen) and Malloy to be unsystematic. These authors missed a large part of the literature on IQ testing in Africa, failed to explicate their inclusion and exclusion criteria, and made downward errors in the conversion of raw scores to IQs (Wicherts, 2007). Lynn (and Vanhanen)’s estimate of average IQ of Africans of around 67 is untenable. Our review indicates that it is about 78 (UK norms) or 80 (US norms).

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1041608009001071?via%3Dihub

  27. @RaceRealist88

    It’s extremely improbable to be 0.00, but also 0.80.

    On this I’m in agreement with James Thompson.

    Where I heavily disagree with Thompson is his view B-W BGH is ~0.50.

    Although, this survey might seem to lend support to that view, this is contradicted by another survey, but much older taken in the 1970s. However the latter is far more reliable – In 1973, 341 members of American Psychological Association were asked if they disagreed or agreed with Jensen’s (1969) hereditarian hypothesis: “genetic factors are strongly implicated in the average Negro-white intelligence difference”. Note “strongly implicated” means 0.50-0.75 BGH (Jensen, 1973, p. 363). This survey showed that 60% disagreed, compared to 28% who agreed.

    So I think this Rindermann survey is not accurate.

    • Replies: @res
    , @davidgmillsatty
  28. @RaceRealist88

    You’re a one-trick pony, but without a very good trick. Everywhere you go you talk about the same thing and always in the same ignorant manner. You have no idea what “valid” means, but somehow the word has gotten stuck in your brain and you can’t rid yourself of it.

    Find a better trick, you silly pony.

    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
  29. res says:
    @Oliver D. Smith

    I’d suggest looking at the other Rindermann survey

    If I understand correctly, both papers are using the same survey–just looking at different responses. If you read both papers you will see text like: “We received a total of 265 responses from May 2013 to March 2014”.

    that shows as an average experts estimate cross-national between-group heritability: ~0.17.

    Let’s include a bit longer excerpt to give an idea of the other factors:

    Genes were rated as the most important cause (17%), followed by educational quality (11.44%), health (10.88%), and educational quantity (10.20%) (Table ​(Table1).1). The sum of both education factors yielded the highest rating (21.64%). Of all factors, genes had by far the largest standard deviation (SD = 23.85; all other factors, SD < 10), indicating disagreement about the importance of genetic influences.

    This is far lower than what is being shown here for B-W.

    Again, a bit longer excerpt:

    There was no clear position among experts regarding environmental and genetic factors in the US Black-White difference in intelligence. However, experts attributed nearly half of the Black-White difference to genetic factors, with 51% attributing the difference to environmental factors and 49% to genetic factors. As shown in Fig. 3, 40% of the experts favored a more environmental perspective, 43% favored a more genetic perspective, and 17% of the experts assumed an equal influence of genes and environment (i.e., 50–50). Nevertheless, the mean preference among experts was slightly in favor of the environmental perspective (51% of the differences can be explained by environmental factors vs. 49% by genetic). This propensity can be attributed to 16% of experts favoring a 100% environmental explanation and 6% of experts favoring a 100% genetic explanation.

    I think it reasonable to conjecture that the environmental differences between US blacks and whites are smaller than the environmental differences between countries worldwide. Which should increase the environmental contribution. I’m not sure how the US B-W genetic difference compares in magnitude to that observed between countries.

    I would also speculate that presenting the first choice as binary (genetic/environmental) and the second choice as having 11 (!) options biases the responses.

    One might also wonder how much of the other 10 categories have significant genetic influence (e.g. wealth).

    At ~0.17 that is far below what Jensen, Lynn, Rushton etc estimated for BGH., so the expert majority view on this certainly doesn’t support the hereditarian hypothesis (Jensenism) but either moderate hereditarianism or environmentalism.

    What values are you claiming for “what Jensen, Lynn, Rushton etc estimated for BGH”? Any references to support your numbers? Were they talking about US B/W differences or country differences?

    The environmentalist view was never strictly 0.00.

    Really? Then why do people still keep asserting 0.00 even now? And why all the 0.00 responses to the survey?

    But since it appears you are admitting the genetic contribution is > 0.00 I would consider that statement a positive step.

    • Replies: @Oliver D. Smith
  30. Eduardo says:
    @Okechukwu

    @Okechukwu

    Then answer me something fucking idiot, the investigation of Jay Gould’s filthy fat about the intelligence gap is invalidated because he was not a geneticist?
    Beyond racism or not, it’s about scientific reality, something you don’t understand or ever understand, subnormal.
    Well Watson and Fischer thought this.

  31. Eduardo says:
    @Oliver D. Smith

    @Oliver D. Smith

    Oliver asked me something, why are you still with this chubby?
    You hate racists, hereditary, or anyone who is from the right, but you always like to comment on Unz, you hate any kind of religion but before you were a proud Christian, you hate Nazis but before you were editor of Metapedia, because you simply hate everything this, you stop wasting time commenting on these sites?
    You are one of the geeks who, if he sees a fascist in person, starts crying or calling the police.
    In the end the West will be saved by brotherhoods of fascist warriors.

    • Replies: @Oliver D. Smith
  32. Anonymous[412] • Disclaimer says:
    @obwandiyag

    My is is above 130, just that English isn’t my native language and I don’t speak it very well. But thank you for this ad personam fallacy

    • Replies: @obwandiyag
  33. I admire Res’s patience in dealing with idiots, but really what’s the point? You can try to teach a dog calculus, but at some point early in the lesson plan the exercise becomes obviously futile and the teacher, if he continues, ends up looking dumber than the dog.

    Race Surrealist and Swamp Okefenokee are never going to get it. Not today. Not tomorrow. Not ever. They are committed to NOT getting it.

    The results are clear to those with eyes to look. Mental tests measure something real, with results that are reproducible, and which have real-world consequences. They don’t measure everything, but what does? They sometimes produce strange results, but that’s why you can always retest. Too many people overinterpret them, but what else is new? Find some science known to the average interested Joe which isn’t overintepreted.

    Do we need to know the genetic basis of intelligence to see differences in racial intelligence? No, we don’t. No more than Charles Darwin needed to know about genes to see natural selection. But even when we do have the genetic basis for intelligence, it won’t change Race Surrealist and Swamp Okefenokee’s minds. They are in the grip of something akin to religious fervor and it ain’t curable.

    Blacks underperform whites everywhere. Both on tests and in the real life situations with which the tests are correlated. Not just blacks in Africa. Not just blacks of African ancestry in America. But blacks everywhere. Blacks in France. Blacks in Brazil. Blacks in the Caribbean. Blacks in Latin America.

    Everywhere.

    Nobody here at this website made the world in this way. That’s just the way the world is. Blame God if you have to blame someone. Many billions of dollars and tens of thousands of educational experiments have gone into correcting what many people perceive as a serious problem to be corrected – i.e., black underperformance – rather than a fact of life to be accepted. And yet the perceived problem persists. And it persists just as much in liberal San Francisco as it does in conservative Mississippi.

    I was just in a brief argument with someone at this website who thinks blacks aren’t really athletic, despite all the evidence to the contrary. He is the flip side to idiots like Race Surrealist and Swamp Okefenokee. They can’t believe their own lying eyes, either.

    • Agree: Mefobills, dc.sunsets
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
  34. Anonymous[412] • Disclaimer says:
    @RaceRealist88

    Crystalized Intelligence is more g loaded and heritable, the theory isn’t convincing. The items were you don’t see a difference could be just far easier etc.

    Yes theses adoption study provide evidence for the absence of environemental causal effect of social class. And a post above just explain what is interesting in the Rustichini paper.

    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
  35. @RaceRealist88

    There is only one problem with all of this no matter what your opinion. The problem is the real world. There is unfortunate dilemma: Look at the countries, nations, whatever and what do you see? The countries with the curve on the left side of the graph with most people with lower G are mostly cesspools. All the Marxists who call everyone racists for believing that IQ means anything…live where… with the people with higher G scores.

    The Magic Blacks Athletes who hate this country live with the White Folks……not with the Brothers. I have no idea what IQ really means but the real world has already decided it no matter what anyone says!

  36. Political affiliations ranged from the left (liberal, 54%) to the right (conservative, 24%)

    Many of us don’t fit on that neat continuum. In fact I daresay the best thinkers don’t.

    As you can see, the paper confronts the politics/attitudes nexus head on.

    Within the strictures referred to above, perhaps. But that’s sort of self-fulfilling.

    since it asked about contentious matters, experts may have felt it was best avoided.

    Which means that the sample is taken among those who have an axe to grind–or any of a number of other possible explanations. Can this be construed as a meaningful sample?

    The respondents have a claim to expertise. Their academic work was better than the scholarly average, so they probably know their subject.

    All of this was self-reported, correct? I don’t think this article, or the survey it references, is particularly rigorous. If I’m wrong, I hope a responsible contributor will show me how and where; preferably without the juvenile antics on display upthread.

  37. Half-Jap says:
    @res

    Total lay guy here on this subject, as I can only understand the stats. Anyways–
    Wouldn’t “observ[ed] differences between groups” over millenia still not resolve the environmental (such as cultural) v. genetic?

    • Replies: @res
  38. idealogus says: • Website
    @obwandiyag

    I have no studies on genetics but I don’t need them either.
    Here I see 2 camps.
    One led by Okechukwu who relies on insults and assault on a personal level and the other who is trying to bring scientific evidence. It is clear that the camp with scientific evidence is right.
    On the other hand, we are on earth. There are no absolute. Everything is in shades of gray.
    I don’t think IQ is 100 genetically and 100 enviroment either.
    What is the correct proportion between the two is going to determine if the scientists are left alone in peace by the camps that bring evidence based on curses and insults.
    I am a Christian and I think we all draw from Adam and for me it is a problem to see these differences between races. But life has taught me that after decades of honest work science finally gets to confirm the Bible. I have seen this many times.
    I also have a problem.
    Why it is such a big problem that in tests whites appear smarter than blacks?
    Eniroment is to be blamed 100%.
    But it is not a problem when the Asians and the Jews appear in tests far smarter than the whites!!!! In this case it is 100% genetic?

    • Replies: @obwandiyag
  39. Anon[974] • Disclaimer says:

    OT, but can anyone tell me about the picture used at the top of Mr. Sailer’s post? Thanks in advance.

    • Replies: @Anon
  40. padre says:

    I find all of them are white!Are other races to stupid to be qualified to make a contribution to the survey?

  41. El Dato says:
    @RaceRealist88

    Without a formal definition for the hereditarian stance on what race is, along with a definition of intelligence and validity for the tests that supposedly test it, then the hereditarian enterprise crumbles.

    You are mixing up Mathematics or Modeling and the Real World to a degree that should not even be allowed once someone has moved on from a uni freshman year.

    Find me a “formal definition” of any concept that is actually real world. I dare you.

    In 1916, Terman thought that the sexes should be equal on his test and removed and added items until his assumption was shown on the test. All tests follow the same process of item elimination and adding that was followed during Binet’s original tests. This is clear admission from the designers themselves that differences in test scores can be removed/changed with different assumptions.

    No, it is a clear sign that when performing hypothesis testing, you cannot start by assuming the hypothesis and then twiggle the measurement procedure until the data fit. Every handbook on statistics tells you not to be stupid in this way in the very first chapter. It doesn’t necessarily help, I hear the postmodern approach to statistics allows this, leading to completely useless treatments for cancer etc.

    “Genetic differences between groups exist, therefore the groups are races”

    Good enough for a definition. Look up “clustering”.

    “If races exist, there are genetic differences between them”

    That makes no sense. Elementary logic.

  42. So, you are saying that the only real differences between groups are categorical differences?

    Hence you believe, for example, there is no valid or useful distinction to be made between say tall and short people, hot and cold temperatures, severe and mild cognitive impairment?

  43. Anonymous[412] • Disclaimer says:
    @Oliver D. Smith

    David becker has replicated Flynn’s estimates

  44. I don’t care about IQ; just, it is obvious that Africans simply started breeding in excess due to Western hygiene & feeding. Other than that, they would have been more or less at the same level as in last 2000 years: illiterate, without agriculture, domesticated animals, without cities, roads, sewerage & anything sustainable.

    They’re bad news, even for themselves.

    • Replies: @dearieme
  45. dearieme says:

    The anger on this topic seems to be particularly about the comparison American white vs American black. Presumably if it’s not predominantly genetic it must be the fault of the blacks. That seems harsh to me but if that’s the way the science points, so be it. If.

    • Replies: @Theodore
    , @res
    , @dc.sunsets
  46. dearieme says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    Africans simply … at the same level as in last 2000 years: illiterate, without agriculture, …

    What on earth possesses you to think that Africans were without agriculture?

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    , @Okechukwu
  47. @res

    Rushton (1995, p. 192) estimated 0.50 BGH (including B-W):

    By a process of inductive generalization, it is reasonable to estimate the heritability of the differences between groups to be roughly the same as that within groups, or about 50 percent.

    Jensen (1973, p. 363) estimated 0.50-0.75 BGH (B-W specific):

    .

    …something between one-half and three-fourths of the average I Q, difference between American Negroes and Whites is attributable to genetic factors, and the remainder to environmental factors and their interaction with the genetic differences.

    Jensen (1998, p. 443) and Rushton & Jensen (2005) estimated 0.50-0.80 BGH (B-W specific):

    …the hereditarian (50% genetic–50% environmental) models of the causes of mean Black–White difference

    In fact, Jensen’s (1998b, p. 443) latest statement of the hereditarian model, termed the default hypothesis, is that genetic and cultural factors carry the exact same weight in causing the mean Black–White difference in IQ as they do in causing individual differences in IQ, about 80% genetic–20% environmental by adulthood.

    Because this strong version of hereditarianism is extremely improbable, Jensenists have re-defined hereditarianism to include much lower estimates; misleading to say the least since those lower estimates are moderate forms of hereditarianism and even environmentalist interpretations, not Jensenism.

    I’ve never argued BGH (including B-W) is 0.00. This is extremely improbable as Jensenism (0.50-0.80). 0.00 though hasn’t been falsified, so that’s why some researchers still work with it as a default hypothesis.

    • Replies: @res
  48. @res

    “Can you prove the opposite? The genome is sufficient to cause the differences between apes and humans. I think that more than encompasses what you are asking for.”

    That “The genome is sufficient to cause the differences between apes and humans” means… what, exactly in this discussion? Humans have minds which give the ability for intentional states. Apes don’t.

    “Here is one response to Schonemann”

    Yes, that’s a response. How does it refute him? Further, how does this answer the question that ‘g’ is built into the test?

    “OK. I went and looked at that in context. I guess we are just ignoring millenia of humans observing differences between groups. “Race” was a concept well before we even knew about genetics. Though genetics does provide a convenient and much more precise way of thinking about races.”

    I am a race realist. The concepts of race I push have a sound philosophical grounding (Hardimon, 2017; Spencer, 2014, 2019). The point is that hereditarians have no definition and appealing to the “millenia of humans observing differences between groups” doesn’t help the hereditarian case.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @annamaria
  49. @Pincher Martin

    My “one trick” (multiple tricks) have yet to be refuted. Here’s the ultimate claim:

    Differences in IQ can be built in and out of the test through test construction and item analysis based on different assumptions. See the Strenio quote.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Pincher Martin
  50. @Pincher Martin

    Darwin was wrong about natural selection; it’s not a mechanism. See Fodor.

    • Replies: @utu
    , @utu
    , @Pincher Martin
  51. @Eduardo

    I think you’re using guilt by association without reading my posts. You’re correct, I edited Metapedia 6-7 years ago but I heavily criticised Rushton, Lynn and Jensen’s hereditarianism hypothesis, as I still do; this is how I met Mikemikev after debating him.

  52. @dearieme

    Which is the chronology of homegrown agricultural production in sub-Saharan (forget about Egypt & Ethiopia) Africa?

    Wheat, rice, barley, …?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture#History

  53. res says:
    @Oliver D. Smith

    The graphic is useless since Piffer appears to have used IQ-data from Lynn and Vanhanen and Lynn and Meisenberg. There’s no way those SSA countries are that low in IQ, putting some in the “mental retardation” range.

    That would be more convincing if we didn’t look at the graphic and notice that the fit would be better with somewhat higher IQ estimates for the lowest IQ African countries.

    Perhaps you could try reproducing the graphic with a list of country IQs you find more reasonable? Rather than just declaring this version “useless”?

    As Anonymous412 notes, David Becker’s work on global IQs is the most recent on the topic. His data and more are available at https://viewoniq.org/
    You might notice that the top post there is an extended discussion on low country IQ estimates and some measures he has taken to deal with this (e.g. see his filtering feature and analysis which shows which countries are affected by setting lower limits for the study IQs included).

    For those who prefer books, Lynn and Becker have produced a 2019 update of The Intelligence of Nations:
    https://www.ulsterinstitute.org/intellofnations.html

    Emil has written a review which is worth a look:
    https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2019-kirkegaard.pdf
    And for those who really want to engage with that, there is an RPubs doc associated with the review:
    https://rpubs.com/EmilOWK/intell_nations_2019

    P.S. Piffer’s reference for his IQ data (per Piffer, 2015 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289615001087 ) is Lynn and Vanhanen, 2012 https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2012-21385-000

    P.P.S. It is also worth noting the likelihood that the genetic IQ potential of African countries is depressed by their environments.

  54. Theodore says:
    @dearieme

    No, it would be blamed on White racism in that case

  55. utu says:
    @RaceRealist88

    Jerry Fodor was great.

    Fodor attacked neo-Darwinism on a purely conceptual and scientific basis—its own turf, in other words. He thought that it suffered from a “free rider” problem: too many of our phenotypic traits have no discernible survival value, and therefore could not plausibly be interpreted as products of adaptation. “Selection theory cannot distinguish the trait upon which fitness is contingent from the trait that has no effect on fitness (and is merely a free rider),” he wrote. “Advertising to the contrary notwithstanding, natural selection can’t be a general mechanism that connects phenotypic variation with variation in fitness. So natural selection can’t be the mechanism of evolution.”

    It seems obvious to us that the heart is for circulating blood and not for making thump-thump noises. (Fodor did not believe this for was defensible, either, but that is for another day.) Pumping is therefore an “adaptation,” the noise is a “free rider.” Is there really a bright sociobiological line dividing, say, the desire to mate for life from the urge to stray? The problem isn’t that drawing a line is hard; it’s that it’s too easy: you simply call the behavior you like an adaptation, the one you don’t like a free rider. Free to concoct a just-so story, you may now encode your own personal biases into something called “human nature.

    Once you’ve made that error, the nonfiction best-seller list is yours for the asking. Everyone loves a mirror disguised as a windowpane: you tell whatever story your readership wants to hear, about whatever behavior it wants to see dignified. So the habits of successful people have been made, over the past thirty years, into derivatives of the savannah and the genetic eons, and “natural selection” has been stretched from a bad metaphor into an industry. Nobody was better at exposing this silliness than Fodor, whose occasional review-essays in the L.R.B. were masterpieces of a plainspoken and withering sarcasm. To Steven Pinker’s suggestion that we read fiction because “it supplies us with a mental catalogue of the fatal conundrums we might face someday,” for instance, Fodor replied, “What if it turns out that, having just used the ring that I got by kidnapping a dwarf to pay off the giants who built me my new castle, I should discover that it is the very ring that I need in order to continue to be immortal and rule the world?”

    “We are artifacts designed by natural selection,” Daniel Dennett wrote, to which Fodor said no. “Darwin’s idea is much deeper, much more beautiful, and appreciably scarier: We are artifacts designed by selection in exactly the sense in which the Rockies are artifacts designed by erosion; which is to say that we aren’t artifacts and nothing designed us. We are, and always have been, entirely on our own.”

  56. res says:
    @Oliver D. Smith

    Where I heavily disagree with Thompson is his view B-W BGH is ~0.50.

    How about you give an estimate (or a range of estimates) for the B-W BGH then? And perhaps a few words on how you account for the admixture analysis results in my comment 11 (or Theodore’s other points in comment 7) given your estimate.

    In 1973, 341 members of American Psychological Association were asked if they disagreed or agreed with Jensen’s (1969) hereditarian hypothesis: “genetic factors are strongly implicated in the average Negro-white intelligence difference”. Note “strongly implicated” means 0.50-0.75 BGH (Jensen, 1973, p. 363). This survey showed that 60% disagreed, compared to 28% who agreed.

    For completeness, here is a reference for that survey:
    Friedrichs, R. (1973). The Impact of Social Factors Upon Scientific Judgment: The “Jensen Thesis” as Appraised by Members of the American Psychological Association. The Journal of Negro Education, 42(4), 429-438. doi:10.2307/2966555
    https://www.jstor.org/stable/2966555

    One thing that was interesting is they had over a 50% response rate. Here is an excerpt with the relevant question and more detailed responses.

    Arthur Jensen’s article,”How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?” in the Spring, 1969, HARVARD EDUCATIONAL REVIEW states that”it (is) a not unreasonable hypothesis that genetic factors are strongly implicated in the average Negro-white intelligence difference. The preponderance of the evidence is,in my opinion, less consistent with a strictly environmental hypothesis than with a genetic hypothesis” (p. 82).
    Check whether you agree( ); tend to agree( ); are neutral( ); tend to
    disagree( ); disagree( ); or have no opinion( ) with regard to the quotatation taken as a whole.

    Sixty percent (205) of the initial overall sample checked either the “tend to disagree” (81 or 24%) or the “disagree” (124 or 36%) category. Twenty-eight percent (97) checked either “tend to agree”(62 or 18%) or “agree” (35 or 10%). The remainder (39 or 11%) selected either the”neutral” (21 or 6%) or “no opinion” (14 or 4%) category or simply sent the card back blank with a statement indicating that they could not choose among the six categories (4 or approximately 1%). If one were to eliminate the latter three categories (11%), one discovers that over two-thirds (68%) of Jensen’s peers who offered judgments disagreed in some measure with his fundamental thesis.(See Table I.)

    It is interesting (especially given that we are looking back from 40 years later and the youngest scientists of that era are either retired or close to retirement) to note the age difference they observed:

    In other words, those selecting the “disagree” category were more than five years younger than those selecting “agree.”

    Did the Rindermann paper give an age analysis for the % genetic/environmental question? I am not finding one. If not, seems like a worthwhile thing to do.

    Back to you.

    So I think this Rindermann survey is not accurate.

    Because it disagrees with a survey from 40 years earlier. It’s not like science moves on over time. Or there has been a revolution in genetics over those 40 years. Or we have had 50 years post Civil Rights to see how various hopes and expectations have played out. Or the list of ISIR attendees (actual intelligence experts) is different from the full APA membership.

    Also note that the environmental/genetic balance of contributions to the US B-W IQ gap may have changed over those forty years due to differing rates of the Flynn Effect for those groups.

  57. res says:
    @Half-Jap

    Total lay guy here on this subject, as I can only understand the stats. Anyways–
    Wouldn’t “observ[ed] differences between groups” over millenia still not resolve the environmental (such as cultural) v. genetic?

    Right. That point was arguing against the race does not exist or is not meaningful “argument.” See comments 7 and 11 for some arguments for a genetic contribution.

    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
  58. res says:
    @dearieme

    As Theodore says, it is just blamed on racism.

    But if you start looking at concrete steps to improve the environment for black IQ development most of what I (and I think any reasonable person, though I am open to alternative concrete ideas) come up with relates to improving bad black behavior. For example, “studying is acting white”, lack of books in the home, lack of vocabulary (and complexity of ideas) talking with children, nutrition, etc. (I consider this just expanding on what you said, please let me know if you disagree)

    IMHO that disconnect produces much of the reflexive anger we see around this topic. Along with the whole “superiority” idea–which is just an unsophisticated take on how group differences relate to individual differences.

    P.S. Perhaps the best counterexample is physical environmental contaminants (e.g. lead, PM2.5). And I think we are doing what can be done there. I have not seen convincing data indicating those have a significant effect on population level black IQ averages relative to whites. But individuals are certainly impacted and this is something which should concern us.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  59. Anon[126] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon

    The painting is by American painter Lilla Cabot Perry and is called “The Picture Book.” It dates from circa 1900. She followed her husband to Tokyo in 1897, and returned by 1901.

    You can buy a reproduction from Encore-editions.com.

    Here it is at Wikipedia:

    https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lilla_Cabot_Perry_-_The_picturebook.jpg?

    It sold at Sotheby’s for $80,500 in 2010.

    http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2010/american-paintings-drawings-sculpture-n08664/lot.109.html

    • Replies: @James Thompson
    , @Anon
  60. utu says:

    The Trouble with Psychological Darwinism
    Jerry Fodor
    https://www.lrb.co.uk/v20/n02/jerry-fodor/the-trouble-with-psychological-darwinism

    “Psychological Darwinism is a kind of conspiracy theory; that is, it explains behaviour by imputing an interest (viz in the proliferation of the genome) that the agent of the behaviour does not acknowledge. When literal conspiracies are alleged, duplicity is generally part of the charge: ‘He wasn’t making confetti; he was shredding the evidence. He did X in aid of Y, and then he lied about his motive.’ But in the kind of conspiracy theories psychologists like best, the motive is supposed to be inaccessible even to the agent, who is thus perfectly sincere in denying the imputation. In the extreme case, it’s hardly even the agent to whom the motive is attributed. Freudian explanations provide a familiar example: What seemed to be merely Jones’s slip of the tongue was the unconscious expression of a libidinous impulse. But not Jones’s libidinous impulse, really; one that his Id had on his behalf. Likewise, for the psychological Darwinist: what seemed to be your, after all, unsurprising interest in your child’s well-being turns out to be your genes’ conspiracy to propagate themselves. Not your conspiracy, notice, but theirs.”

  61. @utu

    That’s a great overview of the book. Darwinists have no response. I’ve read all of the responses to Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini, and they’re all lacking, not fully understanding the argument.

  62. @Anonymous

    How does that address what I wrote about the gap being highest on crystallized intelligence? Why should I accept those adoption studies? How is “social class” defined in those papers?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  63. anon[837] • Disclaimer says:

    Fuck IQ, IQ is vastly overrated. The peoples with a will to survive and procreate own the future.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  64. @dearieme

    It’s all just Cargo Cult thinking.

    White people have magic, and they refuse to share their magic with blacks and browns, hence why no matter how much money is spent on schools per pupil, the latter kids perform an SD below the whites, and why black people have murdered more black people in the last month or two than the KKK killed during the entire post-Reconstruction period.

    It’s about the magic. Don’t you get it?

    Ameliorating this requires placing white kids next to black and brown kids, so that the white-kid magic spills over onto the black and brown kids. The same is true of desegregating neighborhoods; the white people magic enables lower rates of crime, for example. By depriving black people of white neighbors, the blacks have no white-people magic to prevent them from killing each other with an abandon only Paul Kersey can slightly chronicle in his Unz.com blog.

    It cannot be attributed to anything intrinsic about black people generally. We know this because Not All [Black or Brown People] Are Like That, or NABALT. Of course, anyone who embraces this is, by definition, admitting that most [xxx] are, in fact, like that. It’s actually hilarious to notice this.

    If the relative dysfunction of a group cannot be attributed to that group’s members, then the easiest scapegoat is magic. And that’s what we see.

    It doesn’t matter if it’s IQ, or culture, or music, or any kind of “social construct,” outcomes are outcomes…same as is the racial make-up of the NBA.

    I find it fascinating to watch some people pound the table, objecting to IQ or race or whatever, as though doing so changes what is otherwise as visible as is Pikes Peak in Colorado Springs.

    Some simply will never believe their own lying eyes.

  65. res says:
    @Oliver D. Smith

    Thanks for the references (and page numbers for the books).

    Jensen (1973) is
    Educability and Group Differences
    https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/764397

    Jensen (1998) is
    The g Factor
    https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1998-07257-000

    Rushton & Jensen (2005) is
    Thirty years of research on race differences in cognitive ability
    https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F1076-8971.11.2.235

    Because this strong version of hereditarianism is extremely improbable, Jensenists have re-defined hereditarianism to include much lower estimates; misleading to say the least since those lower estimates are moderate forms of hereditarianism and even environmentalist interpretations, not Jensenism.

    You know the difference between an argument and an assertion, right? That bolded portion is the latter. How about you present an argument instead?

    BTW, some might consider converting a range of beliefs into an assertion of the lower end of that range an admirable example of being conservative in one’s claims. Remember that you are arguing against the 0.50 claim (as demonstrated multiple times in this thread). Motte and Bailey becomes tiresome very quickly, so let’s stick to the 0.50 figure given by Dr. Thompson in this post.

    Let’s focus on The g Factor (Jensen, 1998) since that has the most complete exposition of Jensen’s arguments concerning this topic. A full chapter is devoted to the general topic of population differences in g (pages 418 to 530):
    Chapter 12 Population Differences in g: Causal Hypotheses

    Jensen’s initial summary of his default hypothesis on page 443 (the page you reference) has a good overview of the evidence he considers in forming that default hypothesis:

    POPULATION DIFFERENCES IN g: THE DEFAULT HYPOTHESIS
    Consider the following items of evidence: the many biological correlates of g; the fact that among all of the psychometric factors in the domain of cognitive abilities the g factor accounts for the largest part of the mean difference between blacks and whites; the evolutionary history of Homo sapiens and the quantitative differentiation of human populations in allele frequencies for many characteristics, including brain size, largely through adaptive selection for fitness in highly varied climates and habitats; the brain evolved more rapidly than any other organ; half of humans’ polymorphic genes affect brain development; the primary evolutionary differentiation and largest genetic distance between human populations is that between the African populations and all others; the intrinsic positive correlation between brain size and measures of g; the positive mean white-black difference in brain size; the positive correlation between the variable heritability of individual differences in various measures of cognitive abilities and the variable magnitudes of their g loadings. All these phenomena, when viewed together, provide the basis for what I shall call the default hypothesis concerning the nature of population or racial differences in g.

    This excerpt from page 445 explains why he focuses on the US B-W difference in g:

    Since far more empirical research relevant to the examination of the default hypothesis with respect to g has been done on the black-white difference, particularly within the United States, than on any other populations, I will focus exclusively on the causal basis of the mean black-white difference in the level of g.

    The rest of the chapter elaborates on the theoretical and empirical evidence for the default hypothesis.

    Perhaps you could engage with some of the evidence and arguments Jensen presents, rather than just asserting his conclusion is “improbable”? Maybe start by saying which parts you think are especially week or strong evidence for a nontrivial genetic contribution?

    P.S. BTW, page 509 contains a summary of a 1987 survey which seems relevant to this conversation:

    A questionnaire survey 105 conducted in 1987 solicited the anonymous opinions of 661 experts, most of them in the fields of differential psychology, psychometrics, and behavioral genetics. Here is how they responded to the question: “ Which of the following best characterizes your opinion of the heritability of the black-white difference in IQ?”
    15% said: The difference is entirely due to environmental variation.
    1 % said: The difference is entirely due to genetic variation.
    45% said: The difference is a product of both genetic and environmental variation.
    24% said: The data are insufficient to support any reasonable opinion.
    14% said: They did not feel qualified to answer the question

    Reference 105 is:
    Snyderman & Rothman, 1988, pp. 128-130, 294
    which is available at
    https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/1988-snyderman-theiqcontroversythemediaandpublicpolicy.pdf

    Page 129 has some criticism of the survey question used in Friedrichs (1973) which you mentioned above.

    The entire chapter on pages 105-137 is worth a look:
    Chapter 4: Race and Class Differences in IQ

    • Replies: @Oliver D. Smith
  66. @res

    “That point was arguing against the race does not exist or is not meaningful “argument.””

    No idea why “argument” is in “scarequotes.” Fish’s interpretation of what Jensen wrote on race is a correct way of rewording what he wrote.

    Hereditarians have no arguments for the existence of race, they just assume it’s existence.

  67. @Anon

    Thanks. A fine painting, hanging in the Minneapolis Institute of Art, where I photographed it in July. I thought it captured a teacher at work.

  68. Anonymous[558] • Disclaimer says:
    @RaceRealist88

    Imagine writing 1200 comments on a website (totaling 105,500 words), and having 0 published papers, AND thinking oneself the expert. 🙂

    https://www.unz.com/comments/all/?commenterfilter=RaceRealist88

    • Replies: @Oliver D. Smith
  69. Anon[100] • Disclaimer says:

    ‘out damn’d spot!’ – Lady RaceRealist88 MacBeth

  70. Anonymous[370] • Disclaimer says:
    @RaceRealist88

    “Humans have minds which give the ability for intentional states. Apes don’t.”

    Apes does and PGS have within family validity

  71. @RaceRealist88

    “I will make the claim that the black-white gap is 100 percent environmental and, as evidence, cite Fagan and Holland ”

    If by environmental you mean separate evolutionary adaptations to one’s natural surroundings over thousands of years than I agree.

    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
  72. Anonymous[370] • Disclaimer says:
    @RaceRealist88

    “It’s just built into the test” This argument is just an ad hoc isn’t it ?

    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
  73. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @RaceRealist88

    Depressingly, Dr. Thompson reports:

    there are some hardliners who believe that black/white differences are entirely environmental, and some (fewer) hardliners who who believe them to be entirely genetic in origin.

    So there is a significant minority of psychologists that is either unaware of, or in denial of, the biological axiom:

    PHENOTYPE = ENVIRONMENT * GENOTYPE

    More depressing, however, is that most psychologists seem unaware of, or are in denial of, the fact that the brain is exquisitely adapted to record the environment of the organism on an instant by instant basis and to adapt behavioural routines that promote organismal survival and reproductive success. What that means is that the functioning of the brain and its outputs in behavior are not merely sensitive to environmental factors, they are hyper-sensitive to environmental factors.

    Furthermore, the human organism exists in an artificial environment that has profound effects on the shaping of mental function. Specifically, the human organism is subject to (1) culture, and (2) education. To draw an analogy with computers, one can thus say that the brain is hardware, variation in which is largely determined genetically, whereas, culture, the operating system, and education, the software, are pure environmental determinants of brain function, without which no intelligence whatever can be displayed.

    What that means is that Eton and Oxford or Exeter and Harvard will beat the jungle school of the Central African Republic in any mental test invented at Oxford or Harvard or their Western clones. What it does not mean is that the graduates of famous schools are any more intelligent that a farm boy from Ohio, whatever the difference in IQ test score.

    You make the point abundantly clear, the tests are rigged.

  74. @Anonymous

    Assuming that you aren’t just lying about your IQ (only trolls give personal information, and most people on the internet lie) you should be self-aware enough to know that your writing reads like childish babble. Why would you lay yourself out there for such easy mockery? Let’s put it this way. Objectively, your writing doesn’t make any sense in English. It matters not what your opinions are. They cannot be discerned.

  75. @idealogus

    You also need a Freshman Comp course. Several. Your inferior writing skills make your opinions impossible to discern.

  76. @CanSpeccy

    You make the point abundantly clear, the tests are rigged.

    No, they’re not rigged. They just measure some specific talents & wrongly call it general intelligence, with all historical-cultural connotations it implies.

    Basically, being “dumb” or “intelligent” are adjectives which do have meanings, but these meanings are not sharply defined.

    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    , @CanSpeccy
  77. Sulu says:

    The great majority of I.Q. comes down to genetics. If you don’t think so find a chimp that has been largely raised by humans and give it a S.A.T. test. After all a sparrow may study all his life but he will never be a hawk.

    Intelligent people placed in surroundings not conducive to success frequently overcome their surroundings and succeed. Stupid people given every opportunity in the world rarely amount to shit. And the few that do succeed usually do it in fields like sports, music, or acting. Professions that require talent but not brains. I’ve know people that could play a guitar like Clapton but could hardly add two numbers together.

    Biology is destiny.

  78. Anonymous[370] • Disclaimer says:
    @RaceRealist88

    The Fagan paper is just about a bad test who show less differences because it test the concentration of the children during the training and the working memory who are two things in which BW gap is inexistant https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289615000549 , they show that previously learned knowledge has a big BW gap and this is what I would call crystallized intelligence, this show that the result Fagan obtained wasn’t surprising and in any way conclusive because it either test specific or non cognitive ability that aren’t very heritable, and in the other part of the test with previously learned knowledge the gap is here, on this much more g loaded, heritable items. Also the theory doesn’t hold water because for exemple the gap is very wide in task like spatial rotation or digit span backward that doesn’t depend on any specific information or knowledge.

    In the first paper it’s children adopted before 2 years by SES of the adoptive family, the second is by parent education (In which IQ correlate only in the biological sample) and the last paper show a correlation between child EA PGS and family income (page 46)

  79. @RaceRealist88

    Differences in IQ can be built in and out of the test through test construction and item analysis based on different assumptions.

    If you really believe this nonsense, then start building tests which show equality between blacks and whites. Go ahead. We’ll wait. Start with a basic multi-component IQ test and then make your way through all the various tests which are proxies for IQ – i.e., SAT, GRE, LSAT, vocab tests, math tests, engineering tests, etc.

    It’s all just test construction, right? So start constructing. You seem like an ambitious lad with an ambitious agenda. The world awaits.

    You will fail to do this Why? Because it’s an impossible task without creating a dystopian world. Any world which has engineering tests in which blacks and whites score equally, for example, is a world in which the bridges fall down.

    You could probably create a vocab test in which a subset of blacks do as well or better than whites, but that’s only because you would use some specialized street idiom, and even in that case the advantage for blacks would only be temporary. The moment whites were provided with the necessary background information, they would soon be scoring better than the blacks in their own lingo.

    You don’t even believe this nonsense. How do I know? Because in the very thread you’re citing tests which show the rejiggered equality of IQ scores as proof that the environment is 100 percent responsible for the difference. Yet your favorite hobbyhorse description of the entire enterprise of IQ tests is that the tests are not valid.

    So you choose to be a hypocrite. You believe in the validity of those small handful of rejiggered IQ tests when they show what you want to be shown, but you ignore the vast majority of tests which show the opposite.

    • Agree: annamaria
  80. @RaceRealist88

    Darwin was wrong about natural selection; it’s not a mechanism. See Fodor.

    Oh Jesus.

  81. Chinaman says:

    Never understood white people’s inordinate preoccupation with IQ.

    I know very few Asian researchers that devote their career to the study of intelligence. For this, I am thankful to white researcher since their intellectual honesty have established, beyond any reasonable doubt, Asians superiority in IQ or for that matter, any cognitive tasks.

    Asians talk hard work, shrewdness but very rarely, intelligence. The reality is that we have a lot to catch up to the west and touting our higher IQ is incongruent to reality.

    If I was a white , I would just stop talking about race and intelligence altogether or to bring out the black white gap to boost one’s ego because it is embarrassing – when Asians start talking about the Asian-white gap-

    discussion of race and IQ should be like basketball. Off limits to whites.

  82. @Okechukwu

    I can tell you as a lawyer you are absolutely clueless about the legal process. No experienced litigator would make such a blanket statement.

    So what your statement infers is that you may be as absolutely clueless about other things as you are about the legal system.

    Moreover, the legal system is absolutely the wrong place to decide matters of science.

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  83. @Oliver D. Smith

    Our understanding of genetics has changed a lot since 1973.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  84. @Chinaman

    I know very few Asian researchers that devote their career to the study of intelligence. For this, I am thankful to white researcher since their intellectual honesty have established, beyond any reasonable doubt, Asians superiority in IQ or for that matter, any cognitive tasks.

    Why devote your life to the study of something that everyone in East Asia already believes, which is the inherent belief in their own intellectual superiority?

    Besides, East Asia is a laggard in social science. I can think of very few significant social scientists who were born and educated in East Asia. Even in subjects like economics. There’s a handful, but not many. So it’s hardly surprising that you know very few researchers dedicated to the study of intelligence. When’s the last time an East Asian raised in East Asia had something interesting to say about psychology?

    Asians talk hard work, shrewdness but very rarely, intelligence.

    White Americans rarely talk about intelligence. They value work and effort and pursuing their dreams, and this is true even for those Americans who rarely exhibit those traits in their own lives. They don’t believe in inherent superiority.

    Ask a bunch of American white kids if they’d rather be LeBron James or Albert Einstein, and I guarantee you that most will answer with LeBron James.

    If I was a white , I would just stop talking about race and intelligence altogether or to bring out the black white gap to boost one’s ego because it is embarrassing….

    Reality is reality. It doesn’t matter whether you talk about it or not. Blacks aren’t going to start becoming more intelligent just because people at this website stop talking about the IQ gap.

    But I think one of the reasons a handful of American whites have kept at this subject for so long is because the default assumption in the West, and especially in America, is that we whites are responsible for black underperformance because we have not provided the right environment for them. It’s something we hear all our lives and it governs a lot of policies in education, welfare, and the criminal justice system. But of course few people really examine this assumption to see if it is true.

    But, hey, I do appreciate an East Asian – or at least a banana – telling us whites how to think about race. When I think of racial enlightenment, China, Japan, and Korea are the first places that come to my mind.

  85. Okechukwu says:
    @dearieme

    What on earth possesses you to think that Africans were without agriculture?

    This kind of idiocy is rampant on Unz Review. It creates the ironic situation where some of the dumbest knuckledraggers walking the planet are trying to denigrate the intelligence of the Africans who are their intellectual superiors.

  86. @davidgmillsatty

    I wouldn’t make too much of the survey Smith refers to. Jensen’s name was poison back then, and attaching his name to any thesis was likely to diminish its support.

    Even in Snyderman and Rothman’s 1988 book, I vaguely recall there was one question which included Jensen’s name that showed there were still strong feelings against the man, even though a plurality of scholars agreed with what was essentially Jensen’s thesis when his name was not attached to it.

    • Replies: @davidgmillsatty
  87. Batsense says:

    So hey, brainlet here, if intelligence were mostly due to environment, wouldn’t there be a way to “manufacture” geniuses? There are many studies and such about different averages between groups and what can cause lower IQ, but have there been many about what can cause absurdly high IQ?

    • Replies: @Theodore
    , @CanSpeccy
  88. @Pincher Martin

    I didn’t comment on his survey. My comment was that genetics have changed a lot since 1973 and I would expect that attitudes and perceptions about genetics have changed a lot since then.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  89. johnm33 says:

    I want to see a study that isolates cultural artifacts, such as consanguinity and early motherhood, looking at the meta data it seems clear that both impact iq negatively and progressively. That is if cousin marraige is normal then iq drops generation after generation and takes time to recover. Likewise having children at 16 or younger leads to lower iq and early maturity and gets worse with each generation. Conversely waiting until about 25 and having children from non consanguinous males seems to raise the iq of those children above their fathers, generally.

  90. @MikeatMikedotMike

    “If by environmental you mean separate evolutionary adaptations to one’s natural surroundings over thousands of years than I agree.”

    No, that’s not what I mean.

    But I am curious—are you implying that it takes less ‘intelligence’ to survive in the tropics compared to the tundra?

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
  91. @Anonymous

    “This argument is just an ad hoc isn’t it ?”

    How?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  92. @Bardon Kaldian

    “No, they’re not rigged”

    Yea, right. The reference I have provided above demolishes that claim.

  93. @Anonymous

    I’m not really getting RR’s position:

    1. Anti-hereditarianism
    2. Pro-racialism.

    This combination is almost unheard of; I only know of two academics who support it, but both are philosophers and not scientists.

  94. @res

    the positive correlation between the variable heritability of individual differences in various measures of cognitive abilities and the variable magnitudes of their g loadings. All these phenomena, when viewed together, provide the basis for what I shall call the default hypothesis concerning the nature of population or racial differences in g.

    I don’t think this would be the default hypothesis; the default would be o.00.

    Regardless, Jensen massively inflated estimates of within-group heritability:

    As it happens, there is good evidence that Jensen’s estimates of IQ heritability are indeed inflated. Plomin and DeFries (1980) reviewed a large body of modern data that jointly indicated that the broad heritability of IQ in contemporary Western populations is around .50, rather than the .75-.80 that Jensen estimated

    https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8fd5/bc2c0da82792d5fc32e03a5e8791b5181c35.pdf

    So 0.80 is not at all tenable.

    As for Snyderman & Rothman, 1988; unfortunately there’s no breakdown for the 45%: “The difference is a product of both genetic and environmental variation.” So this doesn’t really tell us anything about the popularity of Jensenism in that survey. Many of those 45% wouldn’t be arguing for BGH as high at >0.50.

  95. Theodore says:
    @Batsense

    Usually they accept that the IQ differences between individuals is largely due to genetic differences, but deny that the race differences (for example the 15-point Black White IQ gap) has anything to do with genes. And yet all attempts to improve environment for Blacks so as to raise their median IQ to 100+ into adulthood have failed.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
  96. mikemikev says:
    @Oliver D. Smith

    The default is that within and between group differences are both caused by genetic differences, rather than postulating unspecified combinations of imaginary “environmental variables”. That’s the violation of parsimony.

  97. @Theodore

    Who cares about IQ tests?

    What did blacks accomplish, civilization-wise, in history? Alright, let’s focus on past 100 years, which is long enough:

    a) where on earth do blacks have a functioning, all-black or mostly black society? Africa, Americas, Near East? Something along modern economy, invention, hygiene, low crime rate, low corruption rate, stable families, good education, rule of law,..? Where?

    b) could any black country, anywhere in the world, do something like North Korea: having absurdly crazy political system- and, at the same time, be mentally strong enough to produce nukes? I know they got many things from China, Russia,…- but still. Most are of their own making. Can anyone imagine any African or Africa-derived society to build something like this:

    And this is Pyongyang, the capital of a zombie state ruled by a murderous fatso.

    I don’t give a hoot about IQ tests, but tell me where blacks are to be found, outside of entertainment & sports, actually clowns in enstupidation industry created by whites? Where are they in:

    * exact science
    * social sciences
    * engineering
    * humanist sciences
    * arts (real arts, not just entertainment)
    * statesmanship
    * …

    What can they do to sustain modern world?

    The same goes for American Indians, Abos etc…

    • Agree: Sulu
    • Replies: @Damocles
  98. Okechukwu says:
    @davidgmillsatty

    I can tell you as a lawyer you are absolutely clueless about the legal process.

    Is that so?

    No experienced litigator would make such a blanket statement.

    What are you blabbering about? Just goes to show, anyone with a pulse can become a lawyer.

    Moreover, the legal system is absolutely the wrong place to decide matters of science.

    Yeah, that’s very cute but there’s nothing scientific about this so-called survey.

    Here are a few issues that if this were, hypothetically, adjudicated in a court of law, would get it dismissed and the lawyer sanctioned for wasting the court’s time with nonsense:

    Small sample size

    Even smaller response size

    Questionable controls

    Questionable authenticity

    Also, the “study” is conducted by race/IQ advocates, putting the entire enterprise under question. Race “science” promoters are infamous for massaging data or simply just making shit up. They start out with a conclusion, then they contort the “data” to validate that conclusion rather than letting the data create the conclusion.

    Moreover, respondents, such as they are, are psychologists who wouldn’t know a test tube from their assholes. They are not qualified to even address this question. Staying with the legal theme, put any of these clowns on the witness stand as an expert witness in this matter and they would summarily be impeached. In fact they would be impeached and removed long before the start of trial. Geneticists like my wife are qualified to address these questions, not these jokers.

    What’s more, the question asks how they feel rather than what the evidence shows. If you get respondents who are exponents of racist pseudoscience like Dr. Thompson, then you’d get a 100% hit on genetics playing a role. It’s how Dr. Thompson feels, it’s what he would like to believe, it’s what he hopes fervently for. But it’s not what the evidence shows. As such, how Dr. Thompson or any other racialist feels is totally irrelevant and meaningless. It does nothing to move the football down the field in this matter.

    Finally, there is a lack of diversity in the respondents. I suspect members of The Association of Black Psychologists (https://www.abpsi.org/) would have a completely different take. Time to stop exclusively asking white men, many of whom aren’t very smart themselves, to pontificate on the intelligence of non-whites. Many white racists of the sort found on Unz Review do become psychologists. So these folks are going to answer every question from a white nationalist or white supremacist perspective that is grounded in a rigid ideology completely detached from reality. You’re never going to get useful data that way.

  99. @davidgmillsatty

    I’m not convinced that the genetic evidence is really that compelling in a way that we should expect a tectonic shift in expert opinion, especially given that the geneticists themselves are not going to go out on a limb to make strong pronouncements on racial intelligence using this kind of evidence. And if the geneticists don’t, why would the psychometricians?

    Even if you disagree, experts in fields outside of genetics need time to think about these findings. Don’t expect anyone in psychometrics to rush out and make a dramatic change of opinion based on the evidence uncovered so far. The moderate experts in the field who don’t have a dog in the fight over the IQ gap, and who are open to change their minds, will need to see more evidence – and have that evidence confirmed – before they (privately) change their minds.

    • Replies: @davidgmillsatty
  100. @Okechukwu

    You have absolutely no concept of whether a judge would even care one iota about what you wrote. Judges for the most part stay out of scientific debates.

    Since other scientists would likely disagree with what you wrote, as is obvious from all of the posters who disagree with you, judges are not likely to get involved.

    They do not think it is their job to settle science questions.

    A case might well be dismissed because they some party thinks a judge is going to settle a science question, but that is not the same as a discovery matter.

  101. In other words, psychologists are against public attitudes they classify as being biased stereotypes. They are less keen to admit that many stereotypes are probably true, and well supported by evidence.

    “Psychologists”, not psychologists.
    Assuming there are some of the latter still around.

  102. Anonymous[370] • Disclaimer says:
    @RaceRealist88

    >Show an argument
    “Oh that just test construction”

  103. Anonymous[370] • Disclaimer says:
    @Oliver D. Smith

    The heritability is 0.80 in latter adulthood it’s called the Wilson effect https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4069230/

  104. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Bardon Kaldian

    Basically, being “dumb” or “intelligent” are adjectives which do have meanings, but these meanings are not sharply defined.

    Well of course they have meaning, as do all words in the English language, else they would be not words, but only meaningless noises.

    But, that aside, what is your point?

  105. Batsense says:
    @Okechukwu

    “Then the clown goes on to confidently assert black/white differences in intelligence-related SNPs in favor of whites, which is a complete fantasy informed by his racism. Nobel Laureate geneticists haven’t established this finding. ”

    Uhhh.. James Watson anyone? Funny how ruining a man’s career over making a scientific claim can make other people a little hesitant to follow.

    “He may have unravelled DNA, but James Watson deserves to be shunned”
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/01/dna-james-watson-scientist-selling-nobel-prize-medal

    “James Watson selling Nobel prize ‘because no-one wants to admit I exist’”
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/11261872/James-Watson-selling-Nobel-prize-because-no-one-wants-to-admit-I-exist.html

    “Nobel Laureate James Watson Loses Honorary Titles Over ‘Reprehensible’ Race Comments”
    https://time.com/5501811/james-watson-loses-honors-race-comments/

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  106. res says:
    @Oliver D. Smith

    So complete failure to engage with the evidence (e.g. brain size differences) Jensen used to justify that hypothesis as the default. Thanks for making clear you are just wasting my time. My earlier comments provide enough evidence for anyone with an open mind to evaluate for themselves. Especially if they follow up by reading the full chapters I referenced.

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  107. Theodore says:
    @Oliver D. Smith

    Plomin and DeFries (1980) reviewed a large body of modern data that jointly indicated that the broad heritability of IQ in contemporary Western populations is around .50

    Plomin & Deary (2015) argued for a figure around 0.8 – https://www.nature.com/articles/mp2014105

    Panizzon et al (2014) cited a figure of 0.86 – https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24791031

  108. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @res

    But if you start looking at concrete steps to improve the environment for black IQ development most of what I (and I think any reasonable person, though I am open to alternative concrete ideas) come up with relates to improving bad black behavior. For example, “studying is acting white”, lack of books in the home, lack of vocabulary (and complexity of ideas) talking with children, nutrition, etc. (I consider this just expanding on what you said, please let me know if you disagree)

    Why do you conflate all people of a particular skin color with African Americans of a certain type and class that you clearly believe we would be well rid of?

    That’s not a scientific way to looking at things, it reflects the mindset of a bigot.

    African Americans, if they can sensibly be considered as a collective, are very different culturally and genetically from any African group. Moreover, among African Americans you will find the full range of human behavioral, moral and intellectual types.

    If you want to say that the criminals of the black ghetto would demonstrate an increase in IQ if subject to greater discipline, say so, and say in what this beneficial discipline is to consist and how it is to be administered.

    Or are you just vaporing?

    • Agree: Okechukwu
    • Replies: @res
  109. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @utu

    Re: the article about Fodor that you cite:

    The heritable traits, features of biological organisms—- complex and simple—-change over time. They change as a function of some kinds of variables or other god knows what. This would be true of the relation between any generation of the organism and the next generation and the succeeding generation. But the question that evolution theory is about, as opposed to questions about where did life start or something like that—-is when you get these changes in the inheritable structures of organisms, where do they come from? What are the controlling variables? It’s not whether RNA comes before DNA. The basic question is: Are these changes shaped by environmental factors as in selection theory or are they shaped by some internal factors currently unknown?

    I think this is highly misleading.

    Darwin had little if any knowledge of where heritable organismal variation came from.

    Insofar as he accepted Larmarck’s idea about use and disuse leading to heritable changes in the characteristics of a species, he was mainly wrong.

    But that is not a central idea of Darwinism as it has been understood for the last 50 years. Rather, heritable changes in organisms have been attributed chiefly to mutation, genetic drift, hybridization and some other now understood mechanisms.

    What is interesting, though, is that Darwin was right to acknowledge Larmarck’s ideas, and indeed epigenesis is now a hot topic with plenty of evidence in to show that the behavioural and environmental history of an organism give rise to heritable effects.

  110. res says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Why do you conflate all people of a particular skin color with African Americans of a certain type and class that you clearly believe we would be well rid of?

    I don’t. But that is the subset of blacks in the US which really needs the environmental improvements the most.

    That’s not a scientific way to looking at things, it reflects the mindset of a bigot.

    And assuming the worst in everything someone else says reflects the mindset of an asshole.

    To my mind the key test of whether someone is a bigot is how they treat people as individuals. And recognize the difference between average group characteristics and individual variation.

    African Americans, if they can sensibly be considered as a collective, are very different culturally and genetically from any African group.

    Since we are talking about the black-white IQ gap in the US I hoped it would be obvious that I am using “black” as shorthand for African-American. (see above about assuming the worst, though).

    Moreover, among African Americans you will find the full range of human behavioral, moral and intellectual types.

    Perhaps (though perhaps you could point me to a black John von Neumann? or Newton? or etc.?), but distributions matter.

    If you want to say that the criminals of the black ghetto would demonstrate an increase in IQ if subject to greater discipline, say so, and say in what this beneficial discipline is to consist and how it is to be administered.

    I don’t know. And any discipline of that form would be better decided on and implemented by the black community itself. But precious few people in this country seem even willing to admit there is a problem (other than “racism” from whites)–much less do anything constructive (e.g. not another early childhood education measure with negligible long term results) about it.

    Or are you just vaporing?

    I would say your comments here resemble that much more than mine. Anytime you want to join in on the substantive parts of these discussions, feel free. I know sniping from the sidelines is much more fun (and easier) though. Wouldn’t want to challenge yourself or anything.

    P.S. What percent white is the neighborhood you live in? Do you walk the non-racist walk, or just talk it?

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
    , @CanSpeccy
  111. Okechukwu says:
    @Batsense

    Uhhh.. James Watson anyone? Funny how ruining a man’s career over making a scientific claim can make other people a little hesitant to follow.

    It’s much more probable and much more likely that the smartest people in the world are to be found in Black Africa. Africa stores the full spectrum of human genetic material. That’s my hypothesis, prove me wrong.

    The hypothesis that the most intelligent people genetically are likely to be found in Black Africa is supported by Neil deGrasse Tyson:

    Neil also makes other comments germane to this topic.

    My wife, who is white and a Post-Doctoral Fellow in genetics research, appreciates the fact that she can blend her weaker, bottle-necked, somewhat inbred European genes with my stronger, richer, more robust African genes to create our child. She a scientist thinking in a cold, dispassionate scientific terms. There’s a great irony in the fact that if there is a master race, it is us Black Africans.

    Regarding James Watson, he is a senile old racist geezer (he described himself as a racist) who expressed an opinion without any science to back it up. If he had the actual science to support his assertions he would be untouchable.

    Here’s what I wrote about Watson on another thread:

    No. If Watson was correct he would be uncensurable. Nobody would be able to touch him. No scientist ever got into trouble for subscribing to the law of universal gravitation. Because that is real. However, the notion that black people are intellectually inferior can be challenged and refuted. In a court of law, under the rules of evidence, it would be summarily impeached.

    James Watson had his integrity as a scientist completely and unabashedly savaged. Condemnatory words like unsubstantiated, reckless, reprehensible, unsupported, etc. were shoved up Watson’s ass, and he did nothing. He could not challenge the accusations. He had no counter. He had no contradictory evidence because none exist. He knew it, and the people indicting him knew it. In fact none of the promoters of racist pseudoscience came to Watson’s aide with countervailing and persuasive scientific evidence. Because despite all the garbage you people write on these forums, no such evidence exists.

    • Troll: mikemikev
    • Replies: @Batsense
    , @silviosilver
    , @Reezy
  112. @RaceRealist88

    Then you’re wrong. I don’t have to cite any obscure study by a couple of sheltered dorks in some university. All I have to do is step outside and observe reality. Reality by itself disproves every shred of hokum you’re pushing here.

  113. Okechukwu says:
    @res

    Perhaps (though perhaps you could point me to a black John von Neumann? or Newton? or etc.?), but distributions matter.

    Res, in antiquity your ancestors were eating each other in caves while their contemporaries had scintillating civilizations.

    During the Middle Ages, your ancestors lived in such filth and ignorance that various plagues nearly wiped them out. If anybody got sick the only remedy they had was cutting him open and bleeding him. Australopithecus africanus had better healthcare practices. They didn’t bathe, ever, because their “science” held that bathing was dangerous. I could go on and on.

    We’ve been through this before. You cannot evaluate human intelligence on the basis of epochs or periods of history. Or in terms of personages that had a conducive environment to express their genius. Or even to have their genius recognized. I assure you, there are half naked hunter-gathers today who are innately more intelligent than you and everyone you know.

    Your racism tends to amplify your stupidity such that it becomes impossible to converse with you.

    • LOL: res
    • Replies: @res
  114. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @anon

    The peoples with a will to survive and procreate own the future.

    That is the way it has always been. As someone said several thousand years ago, “the meek shall inherit the earth,” which translated to the circumstances of the present day would indicate that the inheritors will be the teeming masses of Asia and Africa, to whom the Western leadership, so contemptuous of their own people, throw wide the gates of their own countries, bringing about, thereby, population replacement.

    Perhaps some support IQ supremacist ideology as a justification for a hoped for genocide of the teeming masses. Meantime, what we are seeing is that in terms of Darwinian fitness, high IQ is a losing proposition.

  115. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Batsense

    if intelligence were mostly due to environment, wouldn’t there be a way to “manufacture” geniuses?

    That’s exactly what Leopold Mozart did. He abandoned his own career as a musical performer to devote his time to making musical geniuses of his children. With the boy Amadeus, the effort succeeded brilliantly.

    There is a similar story of fabricated genius in the case of Susan Polgár, who, through intensive parental coaching and encouragement was rated, at the age of ten, as world’s top female chess player.

  116. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @res

    P.S. What percent white is the neighborhood you live in? Do you walk the non-racist walk, or just talk it?

    If as you claim, you were not vaporing before, you are certainly driveling now. What the racial composition of the people among whom I have lived for the best part of the last 50 years has to do with my racism or lack thereof is obvi0usly a big fat zero. You write like a grad student desperate to master the art of the academic put-down but without a clue how to go about it.

    Try, instead, being grown up and attend to the scientific issue.

    • Replies: @res
  117. Batsense says:
    @Okechukwu

    Pffft, hahaha that’s some pretty obvious bait there, bro. I unironically hope Africa starts cranking out some geniuses, they may actually be able to make some headway into bringing their homes out of hopeless dysfunction so that they stop coming to white countries and become a destination for American blacks.

  118. Batsense says:
    @CanSpeccy

    While I’m sure those are interesting stories, and may have some piece of what I would be looking for, they are not exactly scientific studies that try to discover “genius” variables.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  119. res says:
    @Okechukwu

    Any time you want to engage in a substantive conversation, feel free.

    And your last sentence shows the Okechukwu Projection Principle is operating as usual.

  120. res says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Try, instead, being grown up and attend to the scientific issue.

    Read back up through our respective comments. You will see that one and only one of us is attending to the scientific issue here. And it is not you.

    P.S. And thanks for answering my question by not answering it. You might ponder the aphorism “actions speak louder than words.”

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  121. Okechukwu says:
    @res

    So complete failure to engage with the evidence (e.g. brain size differences) 

    There is no brain size difference, dumb dumb. Brain sizes differ individually, not racially. At least half the white people on this planet have a smaller brain than mine.

    That you think that “blacks” uniformly have small brains is a shiny testament to your stupidity.

    • Replies: @res
  122. @Okechukwu

    “…trying to denigrate the intelligence of the Africans who are their intellectual superiors.”

    Oh my, the over inflated ego of the black African, Kruger-Dunning effect perfectly illustrated

  123. One result of the human genome project and epigenetics is that we now know genetic expression is fluid, and constantly adapting to environment, emotion, and trauma. Also that these changes in expression due to experience are passed along for generations.

    Lowered IQ can be definitely due to neurotoxin exposure (like flouride in water and comestible products), pesticide exposure, or other insults to the organism. It can also be raised by good child rearing (lots of love, security, attention, and ECE techniques.

    In a cause and effect world, we know that certain cultural practices (how the japanese and jews treat their young children) can have a beneficial effect on IQ.

    My focus on the subject would be to excise, through education, the punitive aspects of western culture (both child abuse and war being endemic to western civ), and to remove as far as possible trauma, which inhibits development in general. In that way a society can maximize its human resources and civility.

    • Disagree: mikemikev
    • Replies: @Anonymous
  124. Intelligence =

    God * Grace * Word * Love /

    (hate + anger + bitterness + pride)

  125. res says:
    @Okechukwu

    You have to get up on the current talking points. Brain size differences exist, they just don’t matter for the IQ gap (which also exists) and are caused by the environment. Here is that notable bastion of crimethink Wikipedia on the topic (emphasis mine).
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence#Brain_size

    A number of studies have reported a moderate statistical correlation between differences in IQ and brain size between individuals in the same group.[184][185] And some scholars have reported differences in average brain sizes between Africans, Europeans, and Asians.[186] J. P. Rushton has argued that Africans on average have smaller brain cases and brains than Europeans, that Europeans have smaller brains than East Asians, and that this is evidence that the gap is biological in nature. Critics of Rushton have argued that Rushton’s arguments rest on outdated data collected by unsound methods and should be considered invalid.[187] Recent reviews by Nisbett et al. (2012a) and Mackintosh (2011) consider that current data does show an average difference in brain size and head-circumference between American blacks and whites, but question whether this has any relevance for the IQ gap. Nisbett et al. argue that crude brain size is unlikely to be a good measure of IQ; for example, brain size also differs between men and women, but without well-documented differences in IQ. At the same time newborn black children have the same average brain size as whites, suggesting that the difference in average size could be accounted for by differences in postnatal environment. Several factors that reduce brain size have been demonstrated to disproportionately affect black children.[188]

    Earl Hunt states that brain size is found to have a correlation of about .35 with intelligence among whites and cites studies showing that genes may account for as much as 90% of individual variation in brain size. According to Hunt, race differences in average brain size could potentially be an important argument for a possible genetic contribution to racial IQ gaps. Nonetheless, Hunt notes that Rushton’s head size data would account for a difference of .09 standard deviations between black and white average test scores, less than a tenth of the 1.0 standard deviation gap in average scores that is observed.[154][189] Wicherts, Borsboom, & Dolan (2010) argue that black-white differences in brain size are insufficient to explain 91% to 95% of the black-white IQ gap.[190]

    Or you could go for the parsimonious explanation that IQ is correlated with brain size and genetic differences exist and contribute to both the brain size and IQ differences which exist between races.

    P.S.

    Brain sizes differ individually, not racially. At least half the white people on this planet have a smaller brain than mine.

    Ah. The well known principle that outliers disprove statistical observations. Thanks for making clear your level of analytical sophistication.

    And a false dichotomy. How about embracing the complexity of brain size differences existing both individually and racially. I know it’s hard, but I think you can do it. Maybe your wife can help you understand.

    P.P.S. And I have absolutely no trouble believing you are “big-headed.”

    • Troll: Okechukwu
    • Replies: @Okechukwu
    , @annamaria
  126. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Batsense

    While I’m sure those are interesting stories, and may have some piece of what I would be looking for, they are not exactly scientific studies that try to discover “genius” variables.

    You didn’t say you were looking for “genius variables” you said

    if intelligence were mostly due to environment, wouldn’t there be a way to “manufacture” geniuses?

    and I gave you a couple of examples of how geniuses have been manjfactured. Please try to cleave to a logical thread, otherwise the conversation becomes completely inane.

    But if you want a genius variable, then one is obsession. As Winston Churchill (who surely qualifies as a genius if only for his Nobel Prize winning literary output) put the matter:

    Genius consists in the infinite capacity to take pains.

    If you study the biography of other geniuses you will find obsession to be a common feature, perhaps a absolutely necessary feature. Such was the case with Newton, Clerk Mawell, Einstein, and Feynman, just to consider examples from one field of endeavor.

    • Replies: @res
  127. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    While I’m sure those are interesting stories, and may have some piece of what I would be looking for, they are not exactly scientific studies that try to discover “genius” variables.

    You didn’t say you were looking for “genius variables” you said

    if intelligence were mostly due to environment, wouldn’t there be a way to “manufacture” geniuses?

    and I gave you a couple of examples of how geniuses have been manufactured.

    So please try to cleave to a logical thread, otherwise the conversation becomes completely inane.

    But if you want a genius variable, then one is obsession. As Winston Churchill (who surely qualifies as a genius if only for his Nobel Prize winning literary output) put the matter:

    Genius consists in the infinite capacity to take pains.

    If you study the biography of other geniuses you will find obsession to be a common feature, perhaps a absolutely necessary feature. Such was the case with Newton, Clerk Mawell, Einstein, and Feynman, just to consider examples from one field of endeavor.

  128. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @res

    Still seething, Res?

    Your absurd insults hardly show your intellect to its best effect.

    • Replies: @res
  129. res says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Your absurd insults hardly show your intellect to its best effect.

    I rely on my more substantive comments to do that. Too bad you don’t have many of those.

    The funny thing here is I am not seeing insults in the comment you were replying to. Odd. Wait, there was one. The quote I gave from you:

    Try, instead, being grown up and attend to the scientific issue.

    Physician, heal thyself.

  130. res says:
    @CanSpeccy

    But if you want a genius variable, then one is obsession.

    That’s a good one, but I like Eysenck’s idea of a combination of psychoticism and ego-strength. Obsession matters as well, but I wonder how much it correlates with the other two.

    For anyone interested, this paper supplies an introduction.
    H. J. Eysenck’s Contribution to the Study and Analysis of Creativity
    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.627.7148&rep=rep1&type=pdf

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  131. annamaria says:
    @RaceRealist88

    “The concepts of race I push have a sound philosophical grounding”

    — Do you understand the difference between philosophical concepts and science? “Philosophically,” the sun can orbit around the earth and your mind could be assessed by a phrenologist. Not so scientifically. Why not show some personal modesty as well as respect towards the expert researchers?

    • Replies: @lavoisier
  132. Okechukwu says:
    @res

    I’m done with you, Res. You’re too dumb, too brainwashed, too delusional and too racist to talk to.

    You’re pathetic.

    • LOL: res, Theodore
  133. annamaria says:
    @CanSpeccy

    “That’s exactly what Leopold Mozart did.”
    — Leopold Mozart tried the same trick with his grandson – it did not work. One can enhance crystallized intelligence by the environment but a genius grade is something different.

  134. Anonymous[370] • Disclaimer says:
    @littlebird

    two words, adoption studies

  135. annamaria says:
    @res

    What other men but Okechulwu can be so eager to make a laughing stock out of himself? His insecurity is flagrant. Poor Okechukwu.
    Where whites accept the scientific data on Asian intelligence, blacks can not help but become enraged. “Why Harvard Is Right to Discriminate Against Asians,” by Chanda Chisala (another believer in the superiority of black people, who nevertheless prefers the company of white people any day): https://www.unz.com/article/why-harvard-is-right-to-discriminate-against-asians/?highlight=asian+Harvard

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  136. Anonymous[370] • Disclaimer says:
    @Okechukwu

    You haven’t presented any valid argument since the beginning of this discussion

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  137. res says:
    @Okechukwu

    Translation: I can’t respond effectively to any of your points and all I can do is emote in a burst of projection.

    And to add some substance to my comment. Let’s follow reference 186 from my Wikipedia excerpt. Notice these are medical researchers. No Rushton or other crimethinker in sight.

    Analysis of brain weight. I. Adult brain weight in relation to sex, race, and age.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6893659

    Abstract
    The weights of fresh brains obtained at consecutive autopsies over a period of five years were reviewed. Brains with lesions, such as large tumor, hemorrhage, infarct, or edema, were excluded. Analysis of the brain weight of 1,261 subjects, aged 25 to 80 years, show that the mean brain weight decreases in order from white men to black men to white women to black women. These differences are statistically significant and become apparent at age 6 years. The rate of decrease for the brain weight after age 25 years is highest for white men, followed by black women, white women, and black men, and, except that between white men and white women, the differences are statistically insignificant. Contrary to earlier reports, the mass decreases rapidly after age 80 years. In evaluating an individual brain weight, it is important to compare it with the norm for each subgroup of a given age.

    • Troll: Okechukwu
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  138. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @res

    Re: Donald H. Saklofske: H. J. Eysenck’s Contribution to the Study and Analysis of Creativity Psihologiija (1998)

    Ha, the widely believed connection between genius and madness. The trouble with that idea is that you can’t be a genius if you’re mad, and you can’t be mad if you’re a genius.

    But Eysenck ingeniously squared the circle by identifying a personality scale along which both the probability of genius and the risk of madness rise, notwithstanding the impossibility of the two co-existing.

    Whether there is any real evidence of such a correlation has been much debated. However, anecdotal evidence seems to support the idea. Certainly, many of the most creative figures in world history seem to have been close to the edge of madness, from Alexander the Great to Peter the Great and Frederick the Great, or in other fields, Jesus of Nazareth, Saint Francis, Nietzsche, and Wittgenstein. And in science, many of the greats, Newton, Darwin, Clerk Maxwell, and Turing, for example, were certainly quite strange.

    The paper you seems most interesting, however, for its explicit embrace of the IQ-ist fallacy. Thus, the author states:

    Creativity has been described as a cognitive ability but also as a personality correlate. While some agree that creativity requires at least an average to above average amount of intelligence…

    Oh dear! It makes one wonder if psychologists are, um, well bright enough, to study intelligence.

    But surely they could at least define their terms intelligently.

    The Oxford English Dictionary, the ultimate authority on the meaning of words of the English language, clearly defines “Intelligence” thus:

    the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.

    And what is genius, other than an exceptional ability to acquire or to apply knowledge and skills?

    The author then states, correctly or not, that Eysenck asserted:

    that creativity holds an intermediate position between intelligence and personality.

    So what we have here is a clear assertion that genius is basically not a manifestation of intelligence, despite it clearly being the supreme example of achievement in the acquisition and application of knowledge.

    This raises the following question: are IQ-ists scammers exploiting a confusion in the meaning of terms to gull the public into believing that their test measures intelligence as that term is generally understood, when it clearly does not, or are they simply too muddled in their thinking to properly define their terms?

    To use Arthur Eddington’s analogy, the IQ-ists position is that of the fisherman who, using a three-inch mesh net, says “what my net does not catch is not a fish”. Likewise, the IQ-ist, with his paper and pencil test of logical puzzlers says, what my test does not measure is not intelligence, and just because you wrote the plays of Shakespeare, designed La Sagrada Familia in Barcelona, or invented the jet engine certainly doesn’t mean that you’re intelligent.

    • Replies: @res
  139. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @annamaria

    Where whites accept the scientific data on Asian intelligence

    Not so. I am white and for reasons I have just pointed out to Res, I do not accept that there is any “scientific” data on Asian intelligence.

    Yes I accept that Asian IQ test scores are said to be higher than those of Europeans. But does that indicate a difference in intelligence?

    Well let’s consider the question that was raised by Res in an attempt to refute the notion that black people may be as smart as white people:

    perhaps you could point me to a black John von Neumann? or Newton? or etc.?

    Which prompts the response that during the interval between the birth of iSASC Newton and the birth of Josie von Neumann, the Chinese produced neither a Newton nor a von Neumann despite having IQ’s reputedly higher than those of white people.

    So instead of bleating on like a brainless member of the KKK, why not try making a critical, and even intelligent, assessment of the issue under discussion, instead of pouring gas on an exchange of regrettably inflammatory comments.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  140. annamaria says:
    @Okechukwu

    “You’re pathetic.”
    — Poor Okechukwu. Why don’t you try to deserve respect among people of your own tribe instead of behaving pathetically among white people?
    Tell us, what is wrong with these Eritrean immigrants (of the Master Race) to Sweden? https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/11/11/feminism-and-immigrant-invaders-destroyed-europe/

  141. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @res

    Analysis of the brain weight of 1,261 subjects, aged 25 to 80 years, show that the mean brain weight decreases in order from white men to black men…

    Maybe brains are like computer circuits: the smaller the get the more powerful they become. I propose, therefore, that these brain-weighing wallahs go back and compare cell sizes. Maybe black brains have smaller, faster neurons. Yes, the brain-weighers should also count brain cells. Maybe black brains have more neurons per cubic centimeter than white, red, yellow, brown (psychologists’?) brains. Anyhow, my proposal will keep those people too busy to make inflammatory comments about brain size and structure for many years to come.

    • Replies: @res
  142. @CanSpeccy

    Chess.
    Music.

    These are your ideas of places where the subject of this discussion, GENERAL intelligence, is relevant?

    Ouch.

    Is LeBron James a basketball genius? (Facepalm.)

    I have a suggestion. Try to create an environment that reliably produces people of mostly-African-ancestry mechanical engineers who can pass the tests for a Professional Engineer license. I’d bet Bill Gates’ entire fortune that it can’t be done, at even 1/10th the percentage of whites who can do it.

    While you’re at it, see if you can reliably teach basset hounds to point over birds or herd sheep.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  143. @Okechukwu

    Which is why people like you and people like me should not wish to coexist under a single political entity. Why try to join a club where you’re not wanted? Or as the greatest Marx of all said, “I’d never be a member in a club that would invite me.”

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  144. res says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Ha, the widely believed connection between genius and madness. The trouble with that idea is that you can’t be a genius if you’re mad, and you can’t be mad if you’re a genius.

    But Eysenck ingeniously squared the circle by identifying a personality scale along which both the probability of genius and the risk of madness rise, notwithstanding the impossibility of the two co-existing.

    You need to make more of an effort to understand. A major point is that the tendency towards madness is kept in check (with varying degrees of success) by the high ego-strength.

    And another important point is that the combination of high psychoticism and high ego-strength is rare.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  145. res says:
    @CanSpeccy

    A possibility which should be considered. There appear to be multiple effects in play. For example:
    – more neurons -> greater brain size giving higher IQ
    – higher quality neurons and connections (e.g. good myelination) giving higher IQ

    It is good to remember that the parsimonious result would be for selection on intelligence to increase all of the intelligence increasing attributes together. Brain size is especially worth noting though, because of the evolutionary counterpressure from hip width as well as the metabolic costs of more neurons.

    P.S. One way in which your analogy actually makes sense is that interconnect length matters in both cases and smaller devices help shrink the length of the interconnects.

    P.P.S. Worth noticing this tidbit from https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/neuro.09.031.2009/full

    In contrast to rodent brains, which scale hypermetrically in size with their numbers of neurons, primate brain size increases approximately isometrically as a function of neuron number, with no systematic change in neuronal density or in the non-neuronal/neuronal ratio with increasing brain size (Herculano-Houzel et al., 2007 ).

    Also:

    By maintaining the average neuronal size (including all arborizations) invariant as brain size changes, primate brains scale in size in a much more space-saving, economical manner compared to the inflationary growth that occurs in rodents, in which larger numbers of neurons are accompanied by larger neurons.

  146. @dc.sunsets

    Chess.
    Music.

    These are your ideas of places where the subject of this discussion, GENERAL intelligence, is relevant?

    He’s wrong in more ways than you briefly describe.

    Both Mozart and Polgar pères were highly intelligent and talented men. It’s not too surprising that some of their children would also be special in the same ways their fathers were special and that, with unusually intensive training and guidance, they would eventually become famous in their professions.

    But neither father could’ve taken an average child, let alone an inner-city kid, and accomplished the same things. It took the fathers’ special genes to be unlocked in paths that they had already test-driven themselves.

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
    , @CanSpeccy
  147. @CanSpeccy

    Not so. I am white and for reasons I have just pointed out to Res, I do not accept that there is any “scientific” data on Asian intelligence.

    She wasn’t talking about you specifically, you egotistical muttonhead. She was talking about whites in general who have studied the matter.

    Asians test higher on IQ tests than whites. So, for that matter, do Jews.

    Do you think the average KKKer is celebrating those two facts? Because everyone knows how much the KKK loved Asians and Jews, don’t they.

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
    , @CanSpeccy
  148. Okechukwu says:
    @Anonymous

    You haven’t presented any valid argument since the beginning of this discussion

    Thank you for the compliment.

    I’m very pleased that my arguments are not considered valid here on Unz Review, save a few smart, sane and rational posters who have complimented me for my contributions. Typically, what passes for “valid argumentation” on Unz Review consists of fake, unscientific, ahistorical, cherrypicked or simply fabricated junk. Stuff that in the real world, most 4 year olds would be ashamed to be associated with.

    Let’s see whose arguments are valid in the real world though.

  149. Okechukwu says:
    @dc.sunsets

    Which is why people like you and people like me should not wish to coexist under a single political entity.

    Which is why I’ve suggested to you clowns repeatedly that you should establish your little white nationalist republic on some island somewhere. Plenty of islands are for sale.

    Why try to join a club where you’re not wanted?

    You’re the one who is in a club where you’re not wanted. I can go to the whitest town in America and they will want me more than you. They will even protest you, and tell you they don’t want your kind around. What happens when you people hold a rally? About 5 of you show up, vastly outnumbered by scores of white counterprotesters. In fact the cops are usually there to protect you from being ripped to shreds.

    To paraphrase Hamlet, get thee to an island.

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
  150. Okechukwu says:
    @Pincher Martin

    But neither father could’ve taken an average child, let alone an inner-city kid, and accomplished the same things.

    Unless the inner-city kid is someone like this:

    Born Frankie Robinson in Detroit, the youngest of seven children born to Clarence and Elizabeth Robinson. He was nicknamed “Sugar Chile” by his mother. Although neither parent was a musician, Frankie began playing piano by ear at the age of two. At the age of three, he won a talent show at the Paradise Theatre in Detroit. By six, he was playing guest shots with Lionel Hampton’s band and the Frankie Carle Orchestra. In 1946, he made a cameo in the Van Johnson film “No Leave, No Love” performing “Caldonia”. In March 1946, Robinson performed at a gala in Washington DC for President Truman. He played four numbers including “Caldonia” during which he shouted out, “How’m I Doin’, Mr President?” This became a popular catch-phrase. In 1947, he was the subject of a seven-minute film entitled “Frankie ‘Sugar Chile’ Robinson.” In 1949, Robinson made his first recordings for the Capitol label. His first two releases were “Numbers Boogie”, which made it to number four on the Billboard R&B charts, and “Caldonia” which reached number 14. Robinson toured and recorded until 1952, when he requested that he be allowed to return to school. He graduated from Northern High School at age 15. He went on to attend Olivet College in Michigan, and graduated with a degree in psychology in 1960.
    – IMDb Mini Biography By: Joanne King

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  151. lavoisier says: • Website
    @annamaria

    Do you understand the difference between philosophical concepts and science?

    Judging from the commentary the answer to your question is almost definitely no.

    Philosophical abstraction and wrestling with conceptual definitions of terms can allow one to escape reality rather comfortably.

    I suspect that most attempts to denigrate IQ and racial differences in the measurement of IQ rely far too heavily on philosophical reasoning and wishful thinking.

  152. Okechukwu says:
    @Pincher Martin

    Asians test higher on IQ tests than whites. So, for that matter, do Jews.

    Asians have been “scoring higher” only since their scores have been used by racist pseudoscientists as a hedge against charges of racism. Prior to that time Asians were assigned very low scores.

    The entire IQ enterprise is a fake house of cards. Who are these Asians and Jews? Who tested them? When? Where? How?

    When they say Asians do they mean Asians in China, for example? Are these urban or rural peasant Chinese? Is the data reliable? I assure you, Chinese peasants are going to have lower IQ’s than African urbanites.

    So a lot depends on who’s being tested, if in fact any tests are done at all. Given that so many variables and factors are at play it becomes very easy to manipulate the results. Using some of the methodology employed by race and IQ “researchers,” I could easily establish an IQ of 60 for white Americans.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  153. Anon[283] • Disclaimer says:

    Don’t eat the yellow snow! Snowflake science for the day:

    “Are Africans, Europeans, and Asians Different “Races”? A Guided-Inquiry Lab for Introducing Undergraduate Students to Genetic Diversity and Preparing Them to Study Natural Selection”

    “Comparison of the DNA sequences shows that people on each continent are not more similar to one another than to people on other continents, and therefore do not qualify as distinct races.”

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3366900/

    Translation: you look at this the way we tell you to look at it. Never mind the statistical misdirection.

    Race/ethnicity is firmly accepted in medicine, pharmacology, life sciences: eg

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16984210

    there are plenty of articles on this.

    And so are there racial/ethnic allele differences relevant to intelligence? Did I find anything?

  154. @Okechukwu

    Of course there are prodigies everywhere, but Sugar Child Robinson’s gifts were not drawn out by training. They manifested themselves far earlier than any training he was given. In other words, he was born with his gifts; they were not developed for him.

    And so your example of the young Robinson goes against the grain of everything you’ve been arguing in this thread. Some people are born so talented that you can’t keep them down with a stick.

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  155. @Okechukwu

    Asians have been “scoring higher” only since their scores have been used by racist pseudoscientists as a hedge against charges of racism. Prior to that time Asians were assigned very low scores.

    Not true. Nor is it true for Jews, either, even though the same thing has been reported by distinguished commentators like Thomas Sowell.

    Even before IQ tests were invented, Westerners understood that East Asians were very smart. The Jesuits in China knew it. So did Francis Galton, and he understood heredity.

    In then late 19th century, Galton actually recommended that the Chinese emigrate to Africa to improve the continent. When he made this recommendation, China was impoverished and its empire in severe decline. The average Chinaman at the time was not any wealthier than the average African. Yet Galton still understood that the Chinese were a smarter and more industrious race than what Africa had provided, and that their constitution was hardier than whites who could not live for long and in great numbers with the many diseases in Africa.

    When they say Asians do they mean Asians in China, for example?

    I was referring to East Asians – Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans. They are the only Asian group who routinely scores higher than whites. There are many, many talented south Asians, but the group averages there are more complicated.

    As for Jews, I was talking about the German Jews (i.e., the Ashkenazi). Other Jews, with their separate ancestral lineages, are not included in the brighter-than-whites groups.

    Are these urban or rural peasant Chinese? Is the data reliable? I assure you, Chinese peasants are going to have lower IQ’s than African urbanites.

    That’s absolutely not true. Many Southeast Asian Chinese, for example, were dirt-poor manual laborers when they emigrated to the region over a century ago. Look at them now. They economically dominate the region. And that’s despite being politically and economically discriminated against.

    Korea was poorer than Ghana sixty years ago. Now Koreans test higher than American whites. That’s not true of Ghanians. To put it mildly.

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  156. Okechukwu says:
    @Pincher Martin

    Of course there are prodigies everywhere, but Sugar Child Robinson’s gifts were not drawn out by training. They manifested themselves far earlier than any training he was given. In other words, he was born with his gifts; they were not developed for him.

    And Mozart wasn’t born with gifts? All the training in the world isn’t going to turn you into a Mozart or a Sugar Chile Robinson.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  157. Okechukwu says:
    @Pincher Martin

    Not true. Nor is it true for Jews, either, even though the same thing has been reported by distinguished commentators like Thomas Sowell.

    Nope. Both had retardation level IQ’s. Low IQ was even a pretext used to ship Jews back to Europe and to keep Chinese from immigrating.

    Even before IQ tests were invented, Westerners understood that East Asians were very smart.

    Nope. They were called dumb monkeys. They were used as coolies, houseboys, gardeners and rickshaw drivers. They were colonized. In China, local Chinese and dogs were banned from parks and other establishments frequented by Europeans. That’s not how you treat people you think are intelligent.

    Don’t take my word for it, watch old movies and TV shows to see how East Asians were depicted. Smart or intelligent doesn’t come to mind. Rather they are treated as bumbling idiots, often with buck teeth.

    As for Jews, I was talking about the German Jews (i.e., the Ashkenazi). Other Jews, with their separate ancestral lineages, are not included in the brighter-than-whites groups

    What evidence do you have that Jews are brighter than anyone? Can they out-compete Kalahari Bushmen in situations requiring raw smarts and quick thinking rather than book learning?

    Many Southeast Asian Chinese, for example, were dirt-poor manual laborers when they emigrated to the region over a century ago. Look at them now. They economically dominate the region. And that’s despite being politically and economically discriminated against.

    A lot can change in a century. Better to look at what Africans do in China within in few years. They go there with nothing, and despite facing institutional racism, end up running large enterprises that employ dozens of Chinese. Many become multi-millionaires in US dollars.

    Korea was poorer than Ghana sixty years ago. Now Koreans test higher than American whites. That’s not true of Ghanians. To put it mildly.

    We have no idea what the IQ of Ghana is. It could very well be higher than the IQ of Korea. Moreover, Korea and Ghana did not have the same colonial experience. Further still, you have no idea what these countries will do in the future. Ghana may in fact overtake Korea. Keep in mind that the Ashanti Empire (present day Ghana) was a much more impressive civilization than Korea. The Ashanti defeated the British Empire militarily at the height of its glory, something Korea would not have been able to do. Just read the dairies of British officers for a sense of how impressed they were with Ashanti civilization.

  158. @Okechukwu

    And Mozart wasn’t born with gifts? All the training in the world isn’t going to turn you into a Mozart or a Sugar Chile Robinson.

    Tell it to your ally-in-debate CanSpeccy. He’s the one who came up with the example of Mozart as a way to “manufacture” a genius.

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  159. @Okechukwu

    Nope. Both had retardation level IQ’s. Low IQ was even a pretext used to ship Jews back to Europe and to keep Chinese from immigrating.

    Someone might have made an argument like that back in the 1920s, but they weren’t using valid IQ tests to prove it. For example, the man who gave IQ tests to Jews in the early nineteen-twenties admitted they received their low scores because they didn’t understand English.

    I could give you an IQ test in Chinese and you’d score very low, too, but that tells us nothing about either your IQ or the science of psychometrics.

    Nope. They were called dumb monkeys. They were used as coolies, houseboys, gardeners and rickshaw drivers. They were colonized. In China, local Chinese and dogs were banned from parks and other establishments frequented by Europeans. That’s not how you treat people you think are intelligent.

    I just gave you two famous examples. I can give many more. Voltaire used the Jesuits’ commentary on China against the church by asking, why would the Chinese need Christ if they are so advanced? He had many other such views on China. For example:

    In other works, such as his monumental universal history, Essai sur les mœurs et l’esprit des nations (An Essay on Universal History: The Manners and Spirit of Nations, 1756), Voltaire also showed his admiration for Chinese civilization. The very fact that he begins his text with China demonstrates how he saw this country as far more advanced, in matters of technology and of governance, than any of the European latecomers.

    Leibniz was probably the smartest, most well-rounded man in Europe when he was alive (much more well-rounded than his contemporary rival Isaac Newton) and he was an ardent Sinophile.

    The European elite in the 17th and 18th centuries were daffy for such things as Chinese porcelain, tea, and silk. In fact, parts of Europe, including England, ran a trade deficit (and a subsequent gold drain) with China until they figured out that opium could make up for it.

    China’s reputation in Europe declined as China declined in the 19th century. But as Francis Galton shows, the intelligent Europeans could still distinguish between an empire in decline and the high quality of its people.

    Better to look at what Africans do in China within in few years. They go there with nothing, and despite facing institutional racism, end up running large enterprises that employ dozens of Chinese. Many become multi-millionaires in US dollars.

    What really amuses me is that I think you truly believe this. Any African getting rich in China is simply a useful middleman who facilities opportunity in Africa for some much wealthier Chinese fellow.

    When I think of Africans in China I mainly think of the riots they cause, from the 1988 Nanjing riots to the recent Guangzhou riots.

    We have no idea what the IQ of Ghana is. It could very well be higher than the IQ of Korea.

    It’s not.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    , @Okechukwu
  160. @Pincher Martin

    This is a real problem with science today. Nobody goes out on a limb and says what they really mean, or know to be the case. for fear that they will lose recognition, their jobs, grants, etc.

    But the fact that they won’t say what they think or know about genetics does not mean that genetics is not a major factor in intelligence.

    The evidence is all around us. For starters, Europeans could wipe out the entire population of Africa without setting foot on it.

    Prove that is not the case.

  161. Okefenokee seems to think that Africans are proving in China that Africans can compete with anyone.

    That’s not the way the Chinese view it. China has an irrational fear of a “black invasion” bringing drugs, crime, and interracial marriage

    Amazing how durable some of these stereotypes are. The Chinese do not have any long negative experience with Africans – no slavery, no Jim Crow, no imperialism, etc. – and yet they seem to have what I would call very similar views of blacks as the most bigoted whites in America.

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  162. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Pincher Martin

    Chess.
    Music.

    These are your ideas of places where the subject of this discussion, GENERAL intelligence, is relevant?

    LOL. At no place in the article is there a reference to “general intelligence” let alone “GENERAL intelligence.”

    As for musical genius, if you think that Mozart’s ability write the full orchestration of Allegri’s Miserere after a single hearing was not a demonstration of intelligence, specifically, the ability to acquire knowledge, I have to wonder about your understanding of the English language.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
    , @Steve2
  163. CanSpeccy says:
    @Pincher Martin

    Asians test higher on IQ tests than whites.

    Yes, I know that. My point was that IQ test scores do not measure intelligence as the word “intelligence” is understood by English speakers familiar with the dictionary meaning of the term.

    As I explained in a comment you either missed or failed to understand:

    To use Arthur Eddington’s analogy, the IQ-ists position is that of the fisherman who, using a three-inch mesh net, says “what my net does not catch is not a fish”. Likewise, the IQ-ist, with his paper and pencil test of logical puzzlers says, what my test does not measure is not intelligence, and just because you wrote the plays of Shakespeare, designed La Sagrada Familia in Barcelona, or invented the jet engine certainly doesn’t mean that you’re intelligent.

    Not that I expect you to take the point. The extraordinary vehemence, and indeed abusiveness of those here who insist on the mental inferiority of Africans, reveals much as to your emotional commitment to an unverified hypothesis. And don’t come back at me about African IQs being standard deviations below that of whites. I know the basis of your claim. I also know that Africans have IQ quite comparable to that of white people of your grandparents’ generation, which rather diminishes the strength of your claim, if you were honest enough to admit the fact — assuming you are able to grasp the fact.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  164. Ron Unz says:
    @Pincher Martin

    Someone might have made an argument like that back in the 1920s, but they weren’t using valid IQ tests to prove it. For example, the man who gave IQ tests to Jews in the early nineteen-twenties admitted they received their low scores because they didn’t understand English.

    Everyone says that on the Internet, but I don’t think it’s correct. I always used to believe it, but a few years ago I actually went back and read several of the main 1920s books on racial/ethnic IQ, and the researchers seemed scrupulously careful in their methodology, certainly making absolutely every possible effort to avoid biasing their results due to language factors. Jewish activists may have later intimidated some of the authors into retracting their findings, but that’s an entirely different matter.

    It seems totally absurd to claim that American-born Jewish students didn’t speak English, but their IQs were actually quite mediocre during the 1920s and 1930s, and only began to rise during the 1940s and later, This is easily seen from the data in Richard Lynn’s book on Jewish IQ, which has the most comprehensive compendium of tests. I discussed the issue at length a few years ago:

    http://www.unz.com/runz/raceiq-super-flynn-effects-in-germans-jews-and-hispanics/

    Also, during the 1930s all American IQ studies indicated that Italian-American children generally had IQs of around 75 or so, including Italian-Americans growing up in California and the Southwest. It seems extremely implausible that Italian-American children living in California during the 1930s didn’t speak English.

    Frankly, most of the IQ researchers of the 1920s seem vastly more careful and cautious in their methodology and findings than many of their more recent counterparts, and I think it’s outrageous that total incompetents like Jason Richwine dishonestly slur those individuals for their findings:

    http://www.unz.com/runz/raceiq-the-jason-richwine-affair/

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  165. @Okechukwu

    Good God! You just keep digging deeper and deeper.

    You repeatedly peddle nonsense demonstrating that you’re entire basis for knowledge is “my wife is a geneticist,” and then throw in gratuitous comments about courtrooms that demonstrate you’re also utterly ignorant of litigation. @davidgmillsatty calls you out for your ignorance, and you respond with an even nuttier rant.

    In case you had not embarrassed yourself sufficiently, you refer to James Thompson as an “exponent[] of racist pseudoscience” and ask whether there were sufficient representatives from the Association of Black Psychologists in the survey, In other words, your position breaks down to the following: if the evidence does not fit my preconceived notion of how the world works, it can’t be “real science.” Pathetic!

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  166. @Ron Unz

    Ron,

    I’m surprised to see you defending Richard Lynn’s scholarship given some of the other statements I’ve seen you make about his work. I think he’s sloppy. He is generally correct in his overall claims, but not to be trusted on the specifics. Lynn is often (but not always) exhaustive in citing previous IQ studies, for example, but he’s sloppy when trying to match up their methodologies.

    I read his book The Chosen People a few years ago. I didn’t come away from it with the same impression you have, but I’ll look at it again. I’ll also see if I can find the other claims I once read to support my views on early Jewish IQ.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  167. @CanSpeccy

    Yes, I know that. My point was that IQ test scores do not measure intelligence as the word “intelligence” is understood by English speakers familiar with the dictionary meaning of the term.

    And my point is that it’s not all about you.

    You’re making the claim that racist whites like this science because it flatters their prejudices. You have even been silly enough to mention the KKK.

    But vehemently racist whites are not known for their love of Jews and Asians, so how exactly does this science flatter their prejudices when it shows Asian and Jewish IQs are higher than whites? Is this some kind of four-dimensional racist chess game they are playing?

    Again, I don’t care what *you* think of psychometrics. Just try to make your prejudices about the science make some logical sense.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  168. @CanSpeccy

    You’re addressing the wrong poster. The quoted portion of your post was made by dc. sunsets, not me.

    As for my views, I have no argument against your claim that Mozart was a genius, just against your point that he was a “manufactured” genius. If anybody’s life proves inherent genius, it’s Mozart.

  169. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @res

    You need to make more of an effort to understand. A major point is that the tendency towards madness is kept in check (with varying degrees of success) by the high ego-strength.

    Doesn’t say that in the reference you provide. It merely states that psychoticism and ego strength together correlate with creativity, that’s quite different from claiming that madness is kept in check by ego strength. Do try to keep on the ball and get your facts straight.

    And anyway the idea that ego strength keeps the tendency to madness in check does not, on the face of it, have much plausibility. If I see a burning bush on the mountain side and hear the voice of the Lord, I may either believe my eyes and ears as I would in the case of any other observation of the physical world, or if I am a staunch atheist, I may say to myself something like, “since God does not exist, this must be a hallucination.” But whatever conclusion I come to, I do not believe ego strength will have anything to do with it.

    Or to put that another way, belief is spontaneous and fundamental: concerning the presumed evidence of the senses, we believe what we believe and have no inclination, ego-driven or otherwise, to discount what we believe.

    Rather, the explanation of the connection between madness and creativity is that madness is driven by the creative imagination when the ability to distinguish the real from the unreal is impaired. Ego strength comes into the flowering of genius simply because it takes egotism to take an imaginative germ of originality and make something of it.

    But what is really interesting about Eysenck’s position is his notion that creativity has nothing to do with intelligence. That is a perversion of the meaning of the word intelligence, since creativity clearly depends on the use of knowledge, which is the essence of intelligence, and specifically, the use of knowledge in a novel way.

    According to the IQ-ist, only what their test measures is intelligence, i.e, mainly the capacity for logical analysis. Yet when a creative genius like Richard Feynman is reported to have an IQ of only 125, IQ-ist become agitated and highly resistant to the possibility of genius combined with only a modest IQ. In view of Eysenck’s position, why is that, one wonders. To which the answer seems obvious: it reveals the hollowness of the IQ-ist’s claim to measure intelligence.

    • Replies: @res
  170. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Pincher Martin

    Again, I don’t care what *you* think of psychometrics. Just try to make your prejudices about the science make some logical sense.

    Once is enough of your ill-tempered blather.

    As for making some logical sense, you surely wouldn’t notice.

  171. Ron Unz says:
    @Pincher Martin

    Lynn is often (but not always) exhaustive in citing previous IQ studies, for example, but he’s sloppy when trying to match up their methodologies.

    Exactly! Lynn’s book on Jewish IQ exhaustively provides all existing US samples, but he then fails to properly understand the implications of his important data, which I pointed out in my article linked above.

    His book is conveniently available in HTML form on this website, and here’s the link to the table in question:

    http://www.unz.com/book/richard_lynn__the-chosen-people/#t_141

    Note that throughout the 1920s and 1930s, most of the Jewish IQs were only slightly above 100, and this was especially true for the six largest-sample tests.

    Can anyone seriously claim that American-born Jewish children in the 1930s didn’t know how to speak English?

    • Agree: utu
    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  172. res says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Do try to keep on the ball and get your facts straight.

    That’s an interesting reaction. Sorry I didn’t realize the summary failed to cover those points. My original point still stands though that there is more for you to understand before criticizing too freely.

    And anyway the idea that ego strength keeps the tendency to madness in check does not, on the face of it, have much plausibility.

    I disagree. Strongly in fact. But that’s a matter of opinion and not really worth arguing about.

    But what is really interesting about Eysenck’s position is his notion that creativity has nothing to do with intelligence.

    I would have to check his writing to see if HE specifically says this because it’s been a while since I dug into this (does anyone here know more about this offhand?), but the general idea seems to be that you need both creativity and intelligence for creative accomplishment.

    Yet when a creative genius like Richard Feynman is reported to have an IQ of only 125, IQ-ist become agitated and highly resistant to the possibility of genius combined with only a modest IQ.

    What I object to more is doubting the accuracy of a childhood IQ score so out of line with his academic success in math/science. Leaving aside the whole creative genius aspect of his makeup. I really wish we had some more data points for Feynman (e.g. an SAT score or similar). Unfortunately he was not in Anne Roe’s group of scientists.

  173. res says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Once is enough of your ill-tempered blather.

    A truly impressive example of projection.

    • Agree: annamaria
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  174. annamaria says:
    @Okechukwu

    “We have no idea what the IQ of Ghana is. It could very well be higher than the IQ of Korea.”

    — Doubtful. When your tribes begin producing engineers, physicists, chemists, neurobiologists, mathematicians, and classical musicians at least an order below Asians, then perhaps you will have some ground for boasting about your Master Race.

    Ghana IQ = 73 (#33 position on the World Ranking List, 2018)
    South Korea IQ = 106
    North Korea IQ = 105

  175. annamaria says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Are you really unaware of affirmative actions paid for by American taxpayers (mostly whites) and the cost of the attempts at lifting black children closer to a level of non-black children?
    Moreover, for a person complaining about other people’s “abusive” manners, your posts are truly abusive because of their intellectual dishonesty and the use of abusive vocabulary.
    In case you did not realize, you and Okechukwu make a couple of belligerent and highly questionable “experts” on this forum.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @Okechukwu
  176. @Ron Unz

    But, Ron, here is my statement that you originally took issue with:

    Someone might have made an argument like that [i.e., that American Jews “had retardation level IQ’s. Low IQ was even a pretext used to ship Jews back to Europe”] back in the 1920s, but they weren’t using valid IQ tests to prove it. For example, the man who gave IQ tests to Jews in the early nineteen-twenties admitted they received their low scores because they didn’t understand English.

    So I was arguing with someone who claimed that American Jews showed a marked inferiority in their IQ scores when first arriving in the United States. And I do recall a test given to Jewish immigrants fresh off the boat who did not do well, but the test-giver thought it had to do with their lack of English-language skills. I remember Thomas Sowell making reference to this episode in one of his books on ethnicity.

    Your argument, on the other hand, seems to be that American Jews showed no marked superiority on IQ tests in the nineteen-twenties and thirties – at least not to the same degree that they would later show.

    A quick glance at the table you provide shows Jews typically scored slightly above the U.S. white gentile average in most of those tests between 1921 and 1937. And they were only one point below the white gentile average in two of the fourteen tests listed – once in 1924 and again in 1928. Their average on those fourteen tests was just above 103.

    So your chart supports my claim that American Jews did not show evidence of “retardation” (Okefenokee’s word, not mine) or “Low IQ” on these IQ tests when they were first tested in the United States.

    As for your claim, I would not discount that language had something to do with the difference in scores between Jews in the early twentieth century and later in the twentieth century. Even if the Jewish kids were born in the U.S., they often would’ve had poor parents with poor to nonexistent English, and lived in neighborhoods with few English-speaking neighbors and kids they could play with. In that context, the Jewish early scores are most impressive and the slight depression in scores explainable. I’m not sure that’s the case, but I wonder why you discount it.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  177. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @res

    A truly impressive example of projection.

    To you, Res, everyone is a projectionist, apparently. But why answer for Pincher Martin, whose comments are not only sour but as unintelligible as the novel from which he has lifted a name.

    And thanks for confirming that, despite the article you cited claiming that Eysenck considered creative genius unrelated to intelligence, you are deeply disturbed by the generally accepted belief that Richard Feynman’s IQ was a modest 125.

    What I object to more is doubting the accuracy of a childhood IQ score so out of line with his academic success in math/science

    I rather doubt if, in saying that, you said what you actually meant, but in any case it is well known that math and verbal SAT scores can be massively out of line. We also know that Feynman was, relative to the high performing grad students at Princeton where he obtained a Ph.D., unusually illiterate. Therefore, an IQ of 125 is in no way out of line with Feynman’s mathematical brilliance, or with the fact of his astonishingly creative imagination, a faculty unconnected with intelligence according Eysenck, if the source you cited knows what they are talking about.

    There are, too, the cases of Louis Alvarez and William Shockley, Nobel Prize winning physicists whose IQ test scores were insufficient for them to be included in Terman’s study of gifted children. So for Eysenck to say that creativity is unrelated to intelligence is perfectly consistent with his view that intelligence is what IQ tests measure, i.e., not creativity.

    But like most IQ-ists, you want to have it all ways: IQ equals intelligence; Since IQ does not correlate with creative genius, creative genius is not intelligence; but all creative geniuses are highly intelligent and must, therefore, have a high IQ. Do you not sometimes feel that logic is not on your side?

    • Replies: @res
  178. @CanSpeccy

    As for making some logical sense, you surely wouldn’t notice.

    Well, it was pretty easy to notice in your case. You think IQ tests are about Mighty Whitey putting out that KKK propaganda … but when confronted by Jewish and Asian overperformance on those same tests when compared to white gentile averages, you get sulky and then retreat to radio silence.

    It’s pretty clear you don’t know very much about this field and have neither the inclination nor perhaps brainpower to learn about it.

    • Agree: annamaria
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  179. To you, Res, everyone is a projectionist, apparently. But why answer for Pincher Martin, whose comments are not only sour but as unintelligible as the novel from which he has lifted a name.

    Great. One of our busiest interlocutors for the opposition to IQ tests in this thread is not only innumerate, but illiterate.

    We sure know how to pick our opponents.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  180. Ron,

    Here is the IQ test Okefenokee and I were discussing. He has misrepresented it; I have not, even if I missed some critical details.

    From the book Measuring Minds: Henry Herbert Goddard and the Origins of American Intelligence Testing

    Goddard began by having his assistants administer a battery of mental tests to 165 Ellis Island immigrants, among them Jews, Hungarians, Italians and Russians. In choosing his subjects, he avoided both the very obviously feebleminded and the “very obviously high grade intelligent immigrant.” He was not trying “to determine the percentage of feeble-minded among immigrants in general,” he explained, “or even of the special groups named.” Even so, Goddard still believed that his results might shed light on the great mass of “average immigrants.”

    Among the methods his assistants tried were various nonverbal “performance tests.” While Ellis island doctors often lauded this type of testing, Goddard was less impressed with these devices as measures of the mind. Tests which emphasized recognizing shapes or following mazes, he proposed, might really be gauging merely the sharpness or weakness of an immigrant’s eyesight. Far better were the Binet tests, he believed, for these gauged more complex processes of mental development.

    By the time Goddard interpreted all his data in 1917, the impact of the previous year’s rancorous testing debate among psychologists was unmistakeable…. Instead of using twelve as the boundary for normal mentality (as he had always done previously), he now diagnosed as feebleminded only those who failed to earn a mental age of about ten. Even so, 83 percent of the Jews, 80 percent of of the Hungarians, 79 percent of the Italians, and 87 percent of the Russians he was studying still fell in the feebleminded category. These results were “so surprising and difficult of acceptance that they can hardly stand by themselves as valid,” he reported.

    I got one major detail wrong in my comment to Okefenokee about this test. Apparently Goddard did use a Yiddish-speaking psychologist, and not an English speaker, when administering this test to the Jews. So their English skills should not have mattered.

    But everything else I said was correct. When Goddard saw these results, he immediately thought that the problem was his test and not the immigrants. He did not, as Okefenokee claims, think Jews were retarded and needed to be returned to Europe. And Goddard also immediately began rejiggering his test.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  181. Alden says:

    Princeton and Brown universities announced they are dropping the use of the Graduate Record Exam for admission to grad school but will focus on increasing diversity in their grad schools.

  182. Ron Unz says:
    @Pincher Martin

    Even if the Jewish kids were born in the U.S., they often would’ve had poor parents with poor to nonexistent English, and lived in neighborhoods with few English-speaking neighbors and kids they could play with.

    Sure, though I strongly suspect that socio-economic status and cultural deprivation was as large a factor as language. All the data strongly supports the “Weak IQ Hypothesis” that I’d presented in my original article back in 2012:

    http://www.unz.com/runz/race-iq-and-wealth/

    And here’s a couple of crucial paragraphs from my piece I already linked upthread:

    On pp. 273-279, Lynn performed an exhaustive literature search for all Jewish IQ studies in America, and presented the 32 examples he found, ranging in date from 1920 to the present day. He then noted the intriguing fact that Jewish IQs had substantially risen relative to white gentile scores during the course of the 20th century. Jewish IQ had averaged 101.5 in the first 14 studies from 1920-1937, then 107 in the nine studies from 1944-1960, and finally 111 in the last nine studies from 1970-2008. All these results had been separately normed against a fixed IQ of 100 for the average white population.

    A relative rise of 10 IQ points over just eighty-odd years in America seems unlikely to have any biological or genetic explanation, so it must be cultural or socio-economic in origin, hence an example of what I call the “Super-Flynn Effect.” Presumably, the underlying factors are somewhat similar to those which produced Ireland’s rise of 13 IQ points in the three decades after 1972, or the 15-20 point relative rise in the very low 1920s IQs of Greek, Italian, and Slav immigrants to America, or the recent rise in Mexican-American IQs.

    http://www.unz.com/runz/raceiq-super-flynn-effects-in-germans-jews-and-hispanics/

    The problem with the IQ debate is that both sides tend to be pretty dogmatic and incompetent.

    • Agree: J.G.R. Fuerst
  183. Ron Unz says:
    @Pincher Martin

    When Goddard saw these results, he immediately thought that the problem was his test and not the immigrants.

    Well, I hadn’t read through most of the comments in this long thread, but what you’re saying about Goddard is exactly the point I was making earlier. The early IQ researchers from the 1920s and prior really seemed rather exemplary in their methods, and for decades have been unfairly slurred by more recent writers, including both pro- and anti-IQ individuals.

    The attacks by the anti-IQists are well-known and obvious, but many of the pro-IQists (like Richwine) do the same thing, because the 1920s results seem to falsify their theories.

    It seems undeniable that American-born children of Italian, Slavic, and Greek immigrant background generally had IQs of around 75-80 during the 1930s, and since IQists rightly see this as a huge theoretical problem, they prefer to throw it all down the memory-hole.

  184. res says:
    @CanSpeccy

    To you, Res, everyone is a projectionist, apparently.

    Pretty much everyone is to some degree (myself obviously included). But for some people (and comments) it shows up more than others. That blather comment was a great example.

    There are, too, the cases of Louis Alvarez and William Shockley, Nobel Prize winning physicists whose IQ test scores were insufficient for them to be included in Terman’s study of gifted children.

    I’ve mentioned this before, but think it is worth repeating. Don’t get too attached to those examples of “insufficient” IQ. We have late in life high ceiling IQ test results available for both of them if anyone ever gets around to looking in Anne Roe’s papers.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  185. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @annamaria

    Hi, AnnaMaria

    Thanks for your comments. I have heard of affirmative action yes, though I have no idea how it is supposed to work in the classroom in “lifting black children closer to a level of non-black children.” Sounds totally insane, to me, and probably quite unfair to those not so affirmatively actioned.

    Obviously what’s required is to reward teacher of competence and give them the authority to impose discipline in the classroom and the ability to reward real achievement. If some ethnic group or another usually comes out bottom of the class, too bad. Certainly pretending that the inferior are as good as the superior is idiotic, as anyone would agree if there was some such effort to impose silliness on the basket ball court or in the boxing ring.

    Incidentally, thank you for noting me as an “expert.”

  186. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Pincher Martin

    but when confronted by Jewish and Asian overperformance on those same tests when compared to white gentile averages, you get sulky and then retreat to radio silence.

    Hey, Pinch: You just made that up. I mean about my response to reports of Jewish and Asian overperformance, for if it were true, you would have quoted me. But you can’t. So you lied.

    Best thing, really, would be for you to return quietly to your watery grave where your inventor left you. But if you want to engage with me, remember if you lie about I will call you what you are: a lying cunt.

    You think IQ tests are about Mighty Whitey putting out that KKK propaganda …

    Do you like the original Pincher Martin, hallucinate a lot? Or do you just lie ad lib?

    It’s pretty clear you don’t know very much about this field

    What’s pretty clear about what’s happening here above water to you at full fathoms five is pretty clearly zip all.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  187. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Pincher Martin

    One of our busiest interlocutors for the opposition to IQ tests in this thread is not only innumerate, but illiterate.

    I make no objection to IQ tests whatever. It is the claim that IQ tests measure intelligence that I object to. A subtle distinction to some, I know, and evidently not worth attempting to debate with a cold corpse that has lain so long beneath the briney.

    Interestingly, the great Hans Eysenck took the same view that I do, except that in his case, he claimed that IQ tests measure intelligence, whereas creative genius was unconnected with intelligence (thanks to Res for the article quoting [indirectly] Eysenck on that). But to the general public, which is to say people who understand the term intelligence as it is defined by dictionaries, creative genius is the highest manifestation of intelligence. So any difference between myself and Eysenck on this point is purely a matter of terminology, not of substance.

    As for illiterate, it’s true I never did reach the end of your biography. But it’s interesting that the original Pinch could be regarded as a literary sock puppet, through the personality of whom, Golding was able to express the horrors of his own psychotic personality. In this regard, do you feel that you have an affinity with Golding?

    • Replies: @annamaria
    , @Pincher Martin
  188. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @res

    I’ve mentioned this before, but think it is worth repeating. Don’t get too attached to those examples of “insufficient” IQ. We have late in life high ceiling IQ test results available…

    LOL. If hindsight shows the predictive power of IQ to have been invalid, we have post-facto IQ test numbers that prove that IQ predicts achievement accurately after all.

    Perhaps you also have post-mortem IQ data proving that geniuses found with hindsight to have had feet of clay, were not really as bright as their “late in life high ceiling IQ test results” proved.

    Such data would be especially useful in the case of alleged fact fudgers like Sir Cyril Burt, or the great Hans Eysenck, of whose contributions to the literature, 61 are currently under consideration for retraction due to data fabulation.

  189. Okechukwu says:
    @Pincher Martin

    Tell it to your ally-in-debate CanSpeccy. He’s the one who came up with the example of Mozart as a way to “manufacture” a genius.

    He’s right though. “God-given gifts” aren’t enough. It has to be nurtured. The prodigy still needs to be identified early and he/she needs to practice and train in order to refine and perfect those natural gifts. If Michael Jordan had picked up his first basketball in his mid teens, he wouldn’t have been good enough to play college ball, much less the NBA. And Jordan is considered the most naturally gifted athlete to ever play basketball.

    This goes to the point I was trying to make to the idiot Res. Persons with raw genius are ubiquitous all over the world (potential Mozarts are born in Africa every day), but only when a multiplicity of factors line up in just the right way is their genius able to flower. One major factor is just being in the right environment. But even then, you still need an unbroken daisy chain of events in order for the potential to be realized and recognized. In Mozart’s case, his father was one such link in the chain.

    If you harken back to all the accomplished persons from the Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment in Europe, you’ll notice that all of them were well-to-do, landed, aristocratic people. So even in Europe itself, only those with the proper positioning and advantages could make it.

    Rational people, unlike racist clowns like Res, understand that genius knows no race or color. That conviction is what led to the Next Einstein Project in Africa.

    https://www.nexteinstein.org/

    • LOL: mikemikev, res
    • Replies: @res
    , @Pincher Martin
  190. Okechukwu says:
    @annamaria

    Are you really unaware of affirmative actions paid for by American taxpayers (mostly whites) and the cost of the attempts at lifting black children closer to a level of non-black children?

    White women like you (and white men by extension) are the prime beneficiaries of Affirmative Action. But most of you are so drenched in privilege that you expect the benefits of AA without calling it AA all the while trying to deny AA to minorities:

    White women benefit most from affirmative action — and are among its fiercest opponents

    https://www.vox.com/2016/5/25/11682950/fisher-supreme-court-white-women-affirmative-action

    Having achieved so much success under Affirmative Action and Protected Group status to the extent that they are often significantly advantaged over men, weasely, conniving white women like you now want to shut those things down. How about if we shut them down and everybody go back to where they were in 1960? But you wouldn’t want that would you, you hypocritical pos.

    • Replies: @annamaria
  191. annamaria says:
    @CanSpeccy

    “I make no objection to IQ tests whatever. It is the claim that IQ tests measure intelligence that I object to.”
    — CanSpeccy, what do you think is IQ?

    An intelligence quotient (IQ) is a total score derived from several standardized tests designed to assess human intelligence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient

    Amen.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  192. Okechukwu says:
    @Pincher Martin

    Someone might have made an argument like that back in the 1920s, but they weren’t using valid IQ tests to prove it.

    But I bet you accept the validity of African IQ scores where no actual texts were given or where such fraudulent shenanigans took place as using retarded children as surrogates for Africans.

    For example, the man who gave IQ tests to Jews in the early nineteen-twenties admitted they received their low scores because they didn’t understand English.

    I’m not going to belabor the point, as I’m not an IQist and I find the IQ concept essentially worthless. There are many posters on here whose IQ’s are well above average. But in terms of real intelligence, they’re as dumb as rocks.

    I do find it interesting that you make this point, which would define you as a rational, clear-headed individual uncaptured by IQist ideology. Albeit you don’t extend the same grace to Africans or African Americans or other people around the world who may be lacking a great deal more than standard English.

    I just gave you two famous examples. I can give many more. Voltaire used the Jesuits’ commentary on China against the church by asking, why would the Chinese need Christ if they are so advanced?

    China was advanced, much more so than Europe. But such things are ephemeral and transitory. The Greeks were advanced too. But present-day Greeks aren’t held in the same esteem. My reference was to European attitudes toward China after its decline (late 18th to mid 20th centuries). Chinese were not regarded as clever or innovative or even culturally interesting. Even in Asia itself the Chinese were given the moniker “Sick Man of Asia.”

    Any African getting rich in China is simply a useful middleman who facilities opportunity in Africa for some much wealthier Chinese fellow.

    Your bigotry is turning your brain to mush. The only middlemen are Chinese employees of the Africans who help them put a “Chinese face” on their operations since racism is a major problem. It’s astonishing to me that your own racism won’t allow you to consider that Africans can go to China and become wealthy and successful. They do it everywhere else, including the United States.

    When I think of Africans in China I mainly think of the riots they cause, from the 1988 Nanjing riots to the recent Guangzhou riots.

    Everybody riots to redress grievances. Chinese rioted extensively in Paris after a single Chinese man was shot by police.

    Clashes in Paris after police shoot dead Chinese man

    Protesters threw missiles and set alight a car in Paris amid anger over the police shooting of a Chinese man.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-39418891/clashes-in-paris-after-police-shoot-dead-chinese-man

    Were the African protests in China anywhere near this violent? Nope. So whatever HBD nonsense you were trying to impute to African protesters in China should apply in fuller measure to Chinese rioters in Paris.

    In fact China itself is a roiling cauldron of protests and riots:

    How China Stays Stable Despite 500 Protests Every Day

    China saw 180,000 protests, riots, and mass demonstrations in 2010 alone — on average about 500 every day — a number that has likely since increased.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/01/how-china-stays-stable-despite-500-protests-every-day/250940/

    It’s not.

    So in the very same post where you essentially invalidate early 20th century Jewish IQ scores due to their poor English skills, your racism dictates that you hypocritically embrace far more questionable, far more fraudulent African IQ scores. You’ve exposed yourself as a racist clown without a shred of integrity.

    As stated, we have no idea what the real IQ of Ghana is. It could be 110 for all we know.

  193. annamaria says:
    @Okechukwu

    Relax, Okechukwu, I am self-reliant enough to do without affirmative actions.
    What about your white wife the geneticist?

    Since you have boasted about Master Race, here are some data on black success in the US: “The Color of Crime:” https://www.zerohedge.com/political/baltimore-city-hits-300-homicides-5th-consecutive-year-amid-murder-crisis
    Comment section:

    Black males age 18-35 years of age are only 1.8% of the U.S. population, yet have committed 52% of homicides from 1980-2008. Black males (all ages) are only 6% of the U.S. population, yet commit 46% of all violent crimes, and 50% of the gun homicides. If Blacks were removed from the equation, the U.S. gun homicide rate would be equal to Great Britain’s, who have some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the world.

    The Black homicide rate is 17 per 100,000, a rate over 9x that of the White rate, and comparable to some of those most murderous countries in the world. If the homicide rate for the U.S. were the White-only rate, the homicide rate would drop 84%, making the U.S. rate comparable to European countries.

    Of the nearly 770,000 violent interracial crimes committed every year involving Blacks and Whites, Blacks commit 85 percent and Whites commit 15 percent. This means that a Black is 27 times more likely to attack a White person than vice versa.

    For each one standard deviation increase in proportion of Black population, firearm homicide rate is increased by 82.8%. Therefore, the U.S. has a Black problem, not a gun or violent crime problem. When Blacks commit crimes of violence, they are nearly three times more likely than non-Blacks to use a gun, and more than twice as likely to use a knife.

    Murder is the leading cause of death for Black men, ages 15 to 34. Their murderers are other Black men 93 percent of the time.
    Black males between 16-35 years of age are only 4.2% of the population, yet commit 72% of the street crime in America.
    The single best indicator of violent crime levels in an area is the percentage of the population that is Black.

    If New York City were all White, the murder rate would drop by 91 percent, the robbery rate by 81 percent, and the shootings rate by 97 percent. In an all-White Chicago, murder would decline 90 percent, rape by 81 percent, and robbery by 90 percent.

    The United States is third in murders throughout the world, but if you omit just five Black cities (Chicago, Detroit, Washington DC, St Louis, and New Orleans) from the equation, then the United States is fourth from the bottom.

    Black serial killers have comprised over half of documented serial killers since the dawn of the 21st century at 56 percent, making up a total of 40 percent in years dating back to 1900. Blacks constituted 44% of the known serial killers during the 1995-2004 period and 38.2% of all multiple murderers (serial, mass, and spree combined) during 1976-1998 period. During the 2000-2010 decade, 62% of serial killers were Black.

    https://archive.org/details/6396bf06c11b81777c27ca0edcb4fdbb4ae17354576954101f6d
    6ce3a015b806
    https://archive.org/details/SerialKillerRate
    2019 Data Shows 51% of Mass Shooters Were Black, Only 29% Were White:
    https://summit.news/2019/08/07/2019-data-shows-51-of-mass-shooters-were-black-only-29-were-white/

    In 2016, the police fatally shot 233 Blacks, the vast majority armed and dangerous, according to the Washington Post. The paper categorized only 16 Black male victims of police shootings as “unarmed.” That classification masks assaults against officers and violent resistance to arrest.

    Contrary to the Black Lives Matter narrative, the police have much more to fear from Black males than Black males have to fear from the police. In 2015, a police officer was 18.5 times more likely to be killed by a Black male than an unarmed Black male was to be killed by a police officer.

    From 1980 to 2013, there were 2,269 officers killed in felonious incidents, and 2,896 offenders. The racial breakdown of offenders over that 33-year period was 52% White, and 41% Black. So, the 13% total Black population in the U.S. commits 41% of police murders.

    Further, Black males have made up 42% of all cop-killers over the last decade, though they are only 6 percent of the population. That 18.5 ratio undoubtedly worsened in 2016, in light of the 53 percent increase in gun murders of officers — committed vastly and disproportionately by Black males.

    Compare the above with the problems that Norway and Sweden have been facing since they began accepting, on humanitarian grounds, the immigrants from the Middle East and Africa: https://voiceofeurope.com/2019/11/sweden-four-african-migrants-charged-with-brutal-rape-of-13-year-old-swede/
    https://www.politico.eu/article/sweden-bombings-grenade-attacks-violent-reality-undoing-peaceful-self-image-law-and-order/

  194. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @annamaria

    Amen

    Amen, indeed. Cofirming that with you, like so many others, IQ = intelligence, is an article of religious — but we have it here from the experts that intelligence is nott memory, visual, musical, spatial, neither is it creative genius.

    Trouble for the IQ-ists is that with those limitations, IQ ceases to be a matter of any interest to the ordinary person. The guy with an IQ of 160 becomes merely like the nerd who topped the algebra exam, whereas what the girls want is a guy with the path-finding skill to lead them safe out of the woods before nightfall, and the guy who thinks up a business plan that makes the family fortune.

    A gift for mere logic chopping, which is what IQ amounts to, is likely more of an annoyance than a great gift. Hence the deliberate confusion of IQ with the English language meaning of “intelligence,” namely, the ability to acquire and use knowledge and skills.

    • Replies: @annamaria
  195. annamaria says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Mister, do you understand your own statement? Reread it (#190): “I make no objection to IQ tests whatever. It is the claim that IQ tests measure intelligence that I object to.”

    Since you were not aware that IQ is an abbreviation for “intelligence quotient,” there was posted a quote from Wikipedia to enlighten you: “An intelligence quotient (IQ) is a total score derived from several standardized tests designed to assess human intelligence.

    You are totally free to develop your own scientific measurement for human intelligence.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  196. @Ron Unz

    Ron,

    Psychometrics is a blunt instrument, like a sledgehammer. I don’t think it can be used on its own for detailed work, at least not when trying to answer many questions about intelligence that interest the layman. If we take the individual IQ numbers too literally, as if each of us (and each of our groups) walks around with an IQ score stamped on our foreheads, they make less sense than if we look at them in aggregate and fit them into the totality of other evidence we have available.

    This is especially true when the scores are applied to race. There seems a pretty clear stratification to racial IQ scores that is durable and meaningful. We see this stratification in so many places geographically and culturally, and across so many various tests and IQ-correlated careers, that it’s hard to believe its basis is not genetic in origin.

    But the exact scores for each group seem less important to me than the general pattern of stratification. I really don’t sweat the details of whether East Asian IQ scores are 103 in relation to white scores or 106, or if African-American scores are 85 or closer to 90. Nor do I think such disparities are a hammer blow to the science. There’s always some noise in these results that’s hard for even the dedicated scientist to have reasonable guesses as to what’s causing them. That’s even more true when you consider we have a hundred years of results to look at.

    Psychometricians should certainly be hard at work trying to figure these details out, but I’m not that interested in being a psychometrician. I just look at what seems mostly indisputable about the science and go from there. If the science advances and churns out more results which become indisputable, I’ll be happy to use those, too.

    It wouldn’t surprise me at all, for example, if IQ scores in sub-Saharan Africa rise substantially (ten points or more) over the next few decades as health and diets improve there. But I would bet that even after their rise they will still be at the bottom of the global distribution. Similarly, it doesn’t surprise me that Hispanic immigrant scores rise somewhat in the U.S. over the first couple of generations. Do I think this means their scores will eventually be even with those of gentile whites? Not a chance.

    CONTINUED…

  197. @Ron Unz

    CONTINUED FROM ABOVE…

    Looking at those early Jewish IQ scores and the totality of other evidence I’m familiar with in the early 20th century, I think those scores were slightly depressed for linguistic reasons. Why?

    Americans Jews were already excelling in disproportionate numbers long before the 1940s. You’ve read Karabel’s The Chosen, and you have cited it extensively in your work, so you should already know that’s true. As Karabel points out, acceptance to the finest American universities and colleges before WW1 was by entrance exam. These exams weren’t particularly difficult, but Jews at the time were doing well enough on them to matriculate in such extraordinarily high numbers that the natives thought it a serious problem; most gentile applicants (up to sixty percent, Karabel reports) were only being allowed in with conditions because their test scores were not sufficient – conditions that certainly would not have been allowed at the time for the Jewish applicants.

    Would this have happened had early 20th-century American Jews as a whole been socioeconomically disadvantaged in ways that diminished their smarts to the level of gentile whites? I find it highly unlikely. What seems more likely is that the Jews who were able to hurdle the barrier of English competency immediately found themselves on a playing field in which they could easily outcompete their gentile peers. For some Jews that was sooner; for other Jews it was little later.

    The Jewish-American kids who had recently-immigrated, Yiddish-speaking parents and were living in Yiddish-speaking communities and were hard at work after school helping their parents make a living in their new country, rather than reading English-language books and doing their homework, could not outcompete their gentile peers – at least not yet. Their naturally high verbal IQ was somewhat stymied because it was being funneled through a second language and culture they were unaccustomed to. It had little to do with their socioeconomic status.

    A second reason I’m skeptical about your socioeconomic thesis is because I’ve read an interesting book about Jews back in Eastern Europe called The Golden Age Shtetl: A New History of Jewish Life in East Europe. The book is not particularly interesting on its own merits, but what was fascinating for me to see was how Eastern European Jews were already outcompeting their gentile neighbors by pretty wide margins long before they ever made it to the U.S. This was demonstrated in small ways because the region was so poor. There was obviously no industrial revolution or any other dramatic new economic way of life, as was taking place in Western Europe and America at the time, but Jews dominated the region’s commerce and trade as it was and made a prosperous life for themselves in comparison to their neighbors.

    And we now know those gentile neighbors today score just a little below 100 on IQ tests.

    You might counter that IQ scores would’ve been much lower in impoverished early 19th-century Eastern Europe had IQ tests even existed, but that would’ve been true for both Jews and gentiles. They were living in the same environment. And Jews were outcompeting their gentile neighbors by a clear margin. A pattern is evident when looking at the totality of evidence.

    So when I look at all those IQ scores for American Jews between 1920 and 1937 and see an unweighted average of 103.1 and note that the gentile-Jewish gap doesn’t look that impressive compared to fifty years later, I just shrug. It doesn’t strike me as being that important a finding.

  198. Okechukwu says:
    @Roberto D'Aubuisson

    You repeatedly peddle nonsense demonstrating that you’re entire basis for knowledge is “my wife is a geneticist,”

    I’m just pointing out that my wife is a real scientist unlike you keyboard posers. Moreover, the real scientific community as pertains to human genetics may as well be on a distant planet insofar as the nonsense you people talk on these boards would not be recognized by any real scientists.

    throw in gratuitous comments about courtrooms that demonstrate you’re also utterly ignorant of litigation. @davidgmillsatty calls you out for your ignorance

    Both you and davidgmillsatty are idiots. Of course racist pseudoscience is never going to be adjudicated in a court of law. There simply isn’t enough reality behind it to warrant that kind of treatment. I was engaged in a thought experiment. And in thought experiments, every scenario is possible.

    Having said that, Dr. Thompson could sue his detractors civilly for libel — those calling him a quack, charlatan or racist pseudoscientist. English defamation law does favor plaintiffs. And Dr. Thompson might try to present this bullshit survey as evidence of “expert opinion” on the probability of genetics playing a role in alleged racial differences in IQ. At that point he and his lawyer (barrister) would be laughed out of the building. They might also be sanctioned for trying to introduce junk exhibits.

    you refer to James Thompson as an “exponent[] of racist pseudoscience”

    I think any fair and rational interpretation of Dr. Thompson’s work would have to describe him as an exponent of racist pseudoscience. He doesn’t even try to hide his preference for ideology over science. If you present him with any piece of data or information that deviates from the canon of racist pseudoscience, he will immediately try to dismiss it or invalidate it regardless of its merits. If you point out the flaws and the gaping holes in his own reasoning he will ignore it. Dr. Thompson is most definitely no searching for the truth.

    and ask whether there were sufficient representatives from the Association of Black Psychologists in the survey,

    Why not? Who’s bright idea was it anyway to engage white nationalists/supremacists in the field of so-called intelligence research. That’s a recipe for disaster. The Black psychologists, on the other hand, are firmly ensconced within the mainstream. They are not bigoted. They are conversant in the black experience. They do not have a racial ax to grind. They are not supremacists. They can go anywhere in the world and give presentations at various conferences. Dr. Thompson and his friends cannot. They would be booed off the lectern.

    In other words, your position breaks down to the following: if the evidence does not fit my preconceived notion of how the world works, it can’t be “real science.”Pathetic

    The distinguishing feature of racist pseudoscience is its singular lack of credible evidence. If it was evidence-based the pseudo prefix wouldn’t be attached to it, would it?

    • Replies: @AaronB
    , @davidgmillsatty
  199. @CanSpeccy

    Hey, Pinch: You just made that up. I mean about my response to reports of Jewish and Asian overperformance, for if it were true, you would have quoted me. But you can’t. So you lied.

    Lied? You made a butthurt non sequitur about my lack of logic (i.e., you got “sulky”) and then didn’t answer the question (i.e., you went into “radio silence”).

    Seems I described your post perfectly.

    But if you want to engage with me, remember if you lie about I will call you what you are: a lying cunt.

    That does seem to be your style. Sulky and non-responsive.

  200. res says:
    @Okechukwu

    It is fun living rent free in your head. Must be depressing to be so utterly unable to answer my points directly that you have to spend your time sniping in comments unrelated to me.

  201. @CanSpeccy

    Canned Sulky,

    I make no objection to IQ tests whatever. It is the claim that IQ tests measure intelligence that I object to.

    Doesn’t matter what you call it. The importance of IQ tests is that they are correlated with real-life outcomes. If what they measured wasn’t important, no one would care about them.

    And this is even more true of large group IQs than it is of individual IQs.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @CanSpeccy
  202. @Okechukwu

    He’s right though. “God-given gifts” aren’t enough. It has to be nurtured.

    No, it really doesn’t.

    Probably the most important composer of the second half of the 19th century was Richard Wagner, a composer who redefined what classical music would be for nearly all the composers who followed in his wake until the eve of WW1 when Stravinsky presented his Rites of Spring in Paris.

    Yet Wagner never mastered a musical instrument, was largely self-taught at composition, and had trouble reading music into his late teens.

    Felix Mendelssohn was as precocious a young talent as Mozart, with a wealthy family that lavished his talent with all the nurturing it needed. But he wasn’t a genius. Few people outside of classical music aficionados remember him today or listen to his music with the frequency they do Mozart, Beethoven or even Schubert. Mendelssohn died young (38), but not many critics think his reputation would’ve been much higher if he lived longer. He was too conservative in his talents. Ironically, his most lasting musical legacy might be his rediscovery of the full range of Bach’s music.

    Your own example of Sugar Chile Robinson shows how little nurturing is needed for musical genius to flourish.

    If Michael Jordan had picked up his first basketball in his mid teens, he wouldn’t have been good enough to play college ball, much less the NBA. And Jordan is considered the most naturally gifted athlete to ever play basketball.

    Tell it to Hakeem Olajuwon, who did not play basketball until he was seventeen, and Dennis Rodman, who could not make his high school basketball teams and started playing his college basketball at a JuCo only after a growth spurt made the local coach interested in having him on the team.

    There are many others like this.

    If you harken back to all the accomplished persons from the Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment in Europe, you’ll notice that all of them were well-to-do, landed, aristocratic people.

    Not true. Newton did not know his own father. Kepler was from a distinguished family line that had fallen into serious trouble before Kepler was born and was having difficulties making ends meet. Leeuwenhoek’s father was a basket maker who died when he was five. Galileo’s father was a musician. Robert Hooke’s father was a priest. Leibniz’s father was a professor.

    None of these people came from impoverished backgrounds, but they were not landed gentry, either. They had to work for a living, and making money was a constant preoccupation for them.

    The only scientists in the beginning of the Scientific Revolution who I can think of offhand that fit your description are Tycho Brahe, Robert Boyle, and Edmond Halley – and as a group they are less important to the Scientific Revolution than the group above which had to work for a living.

  203. Your own example of Sugar Chile Robinson shows how little nurturing is needed for musical genius to flourish.

    And it’s not just instrument-playing musicians.

    Judy Garland was the same way. Her wikipedia entry has this:

    Garland insisted that her talent as a performer was inherited: “Nobody ever taught me what to do onstage.”[151] Critics agree that, even when she debuted as a child,[150] Garland had always sounded mature for her age,[152] particularly on her earlier recordings.[149] From an early age, Garland had been billed as “the little girl with the leather lungs”,[151] a designation the singer later admitted to having felt humiliated by because she would have much preferred to have been known to audiences as a “pretty” or “nice little girl”.[153] Jessel recalled that, even at only 12 years-old, Garland’s singing voice resembled that of “a woman with a heart that had been hurt”.[151] The Kansas City Star contributor Robert Trussel cited Garland’s singing voice among reasons why her role and performance in The Wizard of Oz remains memorable, writing that although “She might have been made up and costumed to look like a little girl … she didn’t sing like one” due to her “powerful contralto command[ing] attention”.[144]

    I recently read a biography of Meryl Streep called Her Again, which focuses on Streep’s career before she became famous. Before I read the book, I thought perhaps her time spent at Yale had helped developed her acting talent.

    Nope. From the moment Streep first started acting at Yale, she was considered a splendid actress who would eventually garner up all the choicest roles given to students. Her talent was so overwhelming it got to the point that other students and future actresses, like Sigourney Weaver, would complain that Meryl didn’t leave any roles for them.

  204. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Pincher Martin

    Canned Sulky

    Good one Pinch. So you must think, anyhow, since you used it in consecutive posts.

    The importance of IQ tests is that they are correlated with real-life outcomes.

    But they aren’t. That’s your trouble Pinch. Your a believer. But you don’t know the facts.

    IQ predicts four fifths of frack all when assessed by net worth or income, and the correlation with creativity is a pathetic o.3 overall, and absolutely nothing with IQ’s above 120. I could give references, but why bother, you don’t.

    And this is even more true of large group IQs than it is of individual IQs.

    Says you. Evidence not needed. You really are a waste of time.

    • Agree: Okechukwu
    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  205. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Pincher Martin

    Doesn’t matter what you call it.

    Not to a psychotic, I suppose.

  206. AaronB says:
    @Okechukwu

    I don’t think this is really a question that can be settled by logic.

    Basically, you belong to a people on the rise, so you are attracted to an optimistic position. You emphasize that aspect of intelligence which is not innate.

    Europeans in their great age, also emphasized the role of personal effort and possibility, and would have been horrified at the fatalism of the alt-right on intelligence.

    Pincher Martin belongs to an exhausted people in decline, so he’s naturally attracted to a fatalistic position. I’m impressed with how passionately he defends a basically illogical position that contradicts the facts. Its like some deep instinct of rest is at work in him. What Freud would call the Thanatos impulse.

    I’ve learned to respect the Thanatos impulse in the alt-right, because I think it is the deep wisdom of nature speaking. Nature knows what is sick and needs to die.

    • Agree: Okechukwu
  207. @AaronB

    Pincher Martin belongs to an exhausted people in decline, so he’s naturally attracted to a fatalistic position. I’m impressed with how passionately he defends a basically illogical position that contradicts the facts. Its like some deep instinct of rest is at work in him. What Freud would call the Thanatos impulse.

    I can’t tell if this is on the level or not, a parody or serious commentary. (It’s often hard to tell with some commentators on this site.)

    Assuming it’s the latter, I don’t see anything “fatalistic” about describing scientific findings in a straightforward and honest manner.

    Europeans in their great age, also emphasized the role of personal effort and possibility, and would have been horrified at the fatalism of the alt-right on intelligence.

    Nothing about appreciating the importance of intelligence in life prevents one from also appreciating the roles of hard work and “possibility,” whatever that is supposed to mean.

    Just last year I listed a bunch of quotations here from brilliant and accomplished Americans who emphasized the importance of hard work in life, from Ben Franklin to Thomas Edison. I presented those quotes precisely because I felt that too many people here talk about IQ as if it were often the sole criterion by which to judge people and don’t value hard work enough.

    And nothing sets my teeth on edge more than someone who has tested well on some IQ-proxy test like the SAT, and then talks as if that is some major accomplishment in and of itself. There are a couple of people like that who occasionally hang out on this site. They’re both underwhelming as commentators. If they didn’t openly tell you they were geniuses, you’d certainly never guess it.

    But Aaron is delusional if he thinks that native intelligence is not a major component to success. He’s as dumb as the guy who doesn’t notice that height matters in basketball and muscle mass and size matter in American football (and, yes, hard work still matters in those fields as well).

    Grow up. Be an adult. Look at life both realistically and honestly. Stop feeding yourself delusions just because you can’t face reality.

  208. @CanSpeccy

    Good one Pinch. So you must think, anyhow, since you used it in consecutive posts.

    I’m glad you like it, Canned Sulky, as you can expect a lot more of it.

    But they aren’t.

    It’s easy for you to say that when you really don’t know anything about IQ. It’s as easy as it was for those NBA basketball players a few months ago to publicly say the earth is flat and that NASA didn’t send teams of astronauts to the moon. Not knowing anything helps your confidence when trying to bluff your way through these discussions. If you knew even a little bit about the science, you’d be less sure of yourself.

  209. @Okechukwu

    Well it is probably true that many Africans are, as you yourself say, the “intellectual superiors” of the “dumbest knuckle-draggers walking the planet”. Rather a low bar for admiration, though, wouldn’t you say?

    Wakanda Forever!

  210. mikemikev says:
    @AaronB

    This undisguised delight in the genocide of Europeans tells you all you need to know about why pseudoscientific “equality” theories are pushed so much in academia and media.

    • Agree: annamaria
  211. Anon[113] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon

    Thank you! Most kind of you. It’s not terribly original in composition, but rather striking with attractive colours.

  212. Okechekwu says:

    I do not understand why more people here do not accept the overwhelming strength of my logic. I have the mind of a god compared to your puny brains. My white-scientist-doctor-wife tells me how virile my throbbing thoughts are compared to all the pasty lab-geeks who work for her. You do not deserve to witness even the shadow of my wisdom much less to bask in the light of its fully-engorged truth.

    • LOL: res, dc.sunsets
    • Troll: mikemikev, Okechukwu
    • Replies: @res
    , @annamaria
  213. Bigby says:
    @Okechukwu

    You are correct Okechukwu. Your inferences are borne out by the relative standard of living indices of Finland and Nigeria. Millions of northen Europeans aren’t flocking to Africa for no reason!

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  214. res says:
    @Okechekwu

    I am actually laughing with Okechukwu for once. At least that was funny trolling.

  215. Steve2 [AKA "StillSteve"] says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Deep thanks for posting this. I have some kind of heart issue and this made heart function better. Don’t know why. Overall you are insightful. Your comments and humanity are appreciated.

    Intelligence, creativity, even genius are worth studying, but won’t be easily reduced. Loss of dimensionality may lose the essential features that people are trying to capture in their studies.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  216. Steve2 [AKA "StillSteve"] says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Or a farm boy from Charlevoix.

    • Replies: @Steve2
  217. Okechukwu says:
    @Pincher Martin

    Okefenokee seems to think that Africans are proving in China that Africans can compete with anyone.

    Do you seriously believe that Africans cannot compete with anyone? Your racism has destroyed your ability to think and reason rationally. You are a poster child for the notion that hate kills brain cells.

    That’s not the way the Chinese view it. China has an irrational fear of a “black invasion” bringing drugs, crime, and interracial marriage

    Those feelings are mutual. There’s a great deal of disquiet in Africa about Chinese crime networks, drug dealers, pimps, prostitutes, interracial marriages, scammers, poachers, illegal aliens, endangered wildlife and dog eaters, etc..

    Ghana arrests Chinese suspects in illegal mining crackdown

    https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-africa-21960772/ghana-arrests-chinese-suspects-in-illegal-mining-crackdown

    Kenya battling with Chinese prostitutes, arrests 15 at brothel

    https://face2faceafrica.com/article/kenya-battling-with-chinese-prostitutes-arrests-15-at-brothel

    Amazing how durable some of these stereotypes are. The Chinese do not have any long negative experience with Africans – no slavery, no Jim Crow, no imperialism, etc. – and yet they seem to have what I would call very similar views of blacks as the most bigoted whites in America.

    The problem with you idiots, and why you will always remain a fringe within a fringe within an even smaller fringe, is that you’re attracted to shiny objects like a baby while oblivious to the rich, textured world around you. You eschew depth and nuance. Everything is black and white with you rather than the intricate shades of color of myriad gradations that comprise life as we know it. .

    You see, everything that you and I described in terms of the attitudes of Chinese and Africans toward each other is true. But those aren’t the only things in what is a rich tapestry that is held together by things that are stronger than the other things that might rip it apart.

    So, for example, some Chinese are concerned about interracial marriage. But other Chinese are not:

    Some Chinese don’t want Africans in China. But other Chinese make Africans feel welcome and help them settle:

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  218. @Okechukwu

    Do you seriously believe that Africans cannot compete with anyone?

    On the playing fields? Yes. In music and song and dance? Yes.

    For any of the other hallmarks of civilization, including the various sciences, math, industry, etc.? As a people? No. Absolutely not. Some individuals? sure.

    And you know this. You know it in your heart even if you’re not willing to admit it here.

    Those feelings are mutual. There’s a great deal of disquiet in Africa about Chinese crime networks, drug dealers, pimps, prostitutes, interracial marriages, scammers, poachers, illegal aliens, endangered wildlife and dog eaters, etc..

    A great book about this is Howard French’s China’s Second Continent: How a Million Chinese are Building a New Empire in Africa.

    French shows the relationship is lopsided. The African are much more reliant on the Chinese than the Chinese are dependent on Africans. He also shows how one of the interesting developments of this relationship is that China unintentionally sends it dregs to Africa because it’s much easier for poor Chinese to get to Africa and compete than it is for poor Africans to get to China and compete.

    That’s what you are seeing in those news reports you’ve provided.

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  219. Steve2 [AKA "StillStillSteve"] says:
    @Steve2

    Sorry. Claude Shannon was from Gaylord, not Charlevoix.

    Northern Michigan is full of smart farm people from a large distribution. Yes, it’s starts out genetic. I don’t know if UM/State/other in-state are completely pozzed yet or not. I suspect that 24/7 studying is rewarded by learning even at pozzitronic emissions schools. One advantage of UM is that you see your enemies earlier in your career. I wonder what Shannon learned about people there. What’s kind of IQ is that? EMO-Q?

    IQ tests may/may not be bullish•t. Once you beat/pass whatever they use to sort, work and performance are all that matter. The whole overpriced UPoz thing has become absurd. Our leaders are dumbsh•ts. Nothing can fix their kind of stupid.

    Maybe semi-random selection followed by quasi-ruthless cuts would work better than IQ tests. Not kidding.

  220. Okechukwu says:
    @Pincher Martin

    On the playing fields? Yes. In music and song and dance? Yes.

    For any of the other hallmarks of civilization, including the various sciences, math, industry, etc.? As a people? No. Absolutely not. Some individuals? sure.

    Name just one credible Chinese scholar, academic, geneticist or scientist who would agree with that statement.

    You’re a total and complete moron. You are living in a fantasy world. You’re hopeless. AaronB describes you perfectly.

  221. Name just one credible Chinese scholar, academic, geneticist or scientist who would agree with that statement.

    Why are you interested in Chinese scholarship on this question? What difference does it make what Chinese scholars, specifically, think?

    But, yes, the Chinese are very racist, and most of them would just assume what I’m saying is correct rather than feel it was something they had to prove. The smarter Chinese are more judicious in expressing their opinions in public, if only because they are well aware of orthodox Western views on the matter and are too cautious to make bold public statements to the contrary.

    You’re a total and complete moron. You are living in a fantasy world. You’re hopeless.

    If this the inevitable point in the discussion where you burst into tears, twist your own titties, and run out the door promising never to talk to me again? I’ve seen you do this with Res, and I’ve been on tenterhooks waiting for my own moment. Many thanks my overexuberant but witless companion.

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  222. Okechukwu says:
    @Bigby

    You are correct Okechukwu. Your inferences are borne out by the relative standard of living indices of Finland and Nigeria. Millions of northen Europeans aren’t flocking to Africa for no reason!

    Irrelevant.

    You clowns just don’t get it. None of that means anything. Things are in constant flux throughout the universe. If Finland is doing well now and Nigeria doing poorly, that doesn’t mean that that state of affairs will remain constant for all eternity:

    In fact,

    Finland Was a Poor Country

    At a time when anti-immigrant sentiment is building in this country, Americans of European descent sometimes forget how poor their own immigrant ancestors were; how foreign and threatening they once seemed to the rest of America. A glance at the history books shows how hard this country’s immigrants had to fight to get into the mainstream.

    http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/199706/10_losurem_finnpoor/index.shtml

    Speaking of Finns, dumbasses like Res believe that the USA was conceived by its founding documents as a “white country,” often citing the Naturalization Act of 1790 which appears to limit citizenship to “free white persons.” Well, Finns were only declared “white” in 1908 per a federal court ruling.

    The idea of whiteness was tightly circumscribed. It would have excluded most of the “whites” on Unz Review. People like Res who are trying to burnish their white supremacy credentials probably didn’t qualify as “white” until sometime in the 20th century. Their attempts to grandfather themselves into whiteness by virtue of verbiage that didn’t apply to them when it was written is quite comical.

  223. Okechukwu says:
    @Pincher Martin

    Why are you interested in Chinese scholarship on this question? What difference does it make what Chinese scholars, specifically, think?

    Because you’re sort of into Chinese supremacy, aren’t you? At least with regard to Africans. But you’re more than welcome to name any credible scholar, academic, scientist or geneticist anywhere in the world who isn’t a white nationalist or Pioneer Fund grantee. Good luck.

    But, yes, the Chinese are very racist, and most of them would just assume what I’m saying is correct rather than feel it was something they had to prove.

    No they wouldn’t, you piece of shit. Chinese scientists and geneticists (I know many) don’t even recognize distinct human races. So how are they going to think this or that “race” can’t do this or that?

    Even if some Chinese are racist, that’s a far cry from the presumption that Africans are inferior or incapable of performing the same tasks Chinese perform. Racism coupled with misplaced feelings of supremacy is sort of an American/European thing.

    Your feelings are your own. I’ve already shot a lot of your assumptions about China and the Chinese to hell in our short exchange. To take refuge, you’ve retreated to mindreading, presumably because you think that is impervious to refutation.

    I’m well aware of the white nationalist desire to put words into Chinese mouths and thoughts into Chinese heads. It’s a ridiculous and delusional attempt to mirror your own stupidity and backwardness in the Chinese. Hint: They’re not interested. China armed and trained black freedom fighters with a view toward putting bigots like you permanently to sleep.

    I know that the certainty that the Chinese are enslaving Africans in Africa and harshly oppressing Africans in China is the stuff of white nationalist wet dreams. Of course, none of it has any basis in reality.

  224. Swamp Okefenokee,

    Because you’re sort of into Chinese supremacy, aren’t you? At least with regard to Africans.

    In regards to Africans, isn’t everyone else sort of supreme? It’s the easiest comparison in which to look good. Certainly no one takes any pride in it.

    Frankly, the disparity is so great that most people avert their eyes and prefer not to notice. It’s never something to brag about. When’s the last time you heard someone say, “Gosh, I’m worried about the challenges posed by what the Africans are doing” when it’s being applied to some positive accomplishment off the playing fields?

    The answer is never. They take no pride in it.

    Most accomplished civilizations prefer to make comparisons with other formidable opponents. Americans at various times, for example, have worried about the Chinese or the Soviets or the Germans or the Japanese. And vice versa. The Japanese have sometimes been worried about Americans or the Soviets. The Germans have sometimes worried about the Russians or French or English. Etc.

    No one worries about the challenges posed from positive African accomplishments, only from the negative ones.

    Most of us would be relieved if you Africans just got your shit together. Only a few of us know that’s probably a vain hope.

    No they wouldn’t, you piece of shit. Chinese scientists and geneticists (I know many) don’t even recognize distinct human races.

    Stop bluffing, Okefenokee. You don’t know any Chinese scientists and geneticists.

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  225. @Okechukwu

    So you decide to call me an idiot for simply pointing out your ignorance of the law.

    You may have been using your legal example as a thought experiment, but since it contained a gross misunderstanding of how the law works in the US, which jurisdiction I presume you were talking about, I would say it was a poor choice for a thought experiment.

    Calling people idiots on the internet just never seems to advance meaningful discussion.

    But I am not singling you out on this. There seems to be more than enough insults thrown around on this site.

    But that is free speech. However, insults do little to advance arguments.

  226. annamaria says:
    @AaronB

    “What Freud would call the Thanatos impulse. I’ve learned to respect the Thanatos impulse in the alt-right…”

    — Are you sure that Freud’s opuses have anything to do with science?
    Also, it is cute that both AaronB and Okechukwu cling to white people’s civilization, and avoid like a plague living among their own people while pretending that they, AaronB and Okechukwu, belong to some superior and chosen tribes.

    This is your idol, AaronB: “Freud Was a Fraud: A Triumph of Pseudoscience” https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/freud-was-a-fraud-a-triumph-of-pseudoscience/

    He treated pampered, rich socialites. His attitude towards them was cynical; they provided a steady source of income by not being cured, and in one case he rushed back to see a patient in the fear that he might get well in his absence. He had little sympathy for his patients; he actively despised most people, especially those of the lower social orders. He was a misogynist who believed women were biologically inferior. He treated his wife abominably. …

    He was preoccupied with sex, presumably because of his own problems in that area. ..

    Freud’s confession:

    I am actually not at all a man of science, not an observer, not an experimenter, not a thinker.

  227. annamaria says:
    @Okechekwu

    “I have the mind of a god… You do not deserve to witness even the shadow of my wisdom.”

    — You are a clinical case walking.

    … grandiosity refers to an unrealistic sense of superiority, characterized by a sustained view of one’s self as better than other people, which is expressed by disdainfully viewing them as inferior; and refers to a sense of personal uniqueness, the belief that few other people have anything in common with oneself, and that one can only be understood by a few, very special people.

    The personality trait of grandiosity is principally associated with narcissistic personality disorder (NPD)…

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

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  228. @Okechukwu

    It’s much more probable and much more likely that the smartest people in the world are to be found in Black Africa.

    Hah, in any sane society that would engender the LOL heard around the world.

    There’s a great irony in the fact that if there is a master race, it is us Black Africans.

    As would that.

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
  229. @Okechukwu

    And if we’d picked our own cotton?

    You’d still be trying to get onto our “Island” (North America.)

    Folks like you make me laugh my a$$ off. Go back to your ancestral homeland. Maybe you can find your Waukanda somewhere other than Wisconsin.

  230. @silviosilver

    I just (finally) realized that Oke (ah-choo) is a parody account.

    That explains everything….

  231. @CanSpeccy

    You make the point abundantly clear, the tests are rigged.

    Since life is the ultimate test of all, and intelligence is a contributor (major one) to all, then tests that have positive correlation to life success contain validity. Good luck creating a test of any kind of general, broadly applicable talent that doesn’t look like one of the IQ tests you abhor.

    In the meantime, I like Gottfredson’s distillation.
    http://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2011InstantExpertIntelligence.pdf

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  232. Amit says:

    Sub-Saharan Africans are 2nd last in IQ to Australian Aborigines…

    • Troll: Okechukwu
  233. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @annamaria

    Since you were not aware that IQ is an abbreviation for “intelligence quotient.”

    Aha! Enlightenment. IQ measures intelligence because the letters IQ stand for “Intelligence Quotient.”

    How stupid of me not to realize that the name alone provides proof of validity.

    Or does it?

    Um, well, actually, no.

    So AM do try to focus on what is at issue, namely, does an IQ test score measure the ability to acquire and use knowledge and skills. For example, does it mean that if Albert Einstein was the world’s greatest physicist, then he must have been just about the world’s most intelligent man and that, furthermore, he could also have written better plays that Shakespeare or a better Requiem Mass than Mozart, had he put his mind to it?

    And if you say yes, please provide the evidence. Or if you say no, kindly stop commenting here for a bit and examine your own thinking about intelligence and consider whether, perhaps, you haven’t any idea, really, why you accept the seemingly absurd assumption that the multi-faceted behavioural property we call intelligence can be measured on a uni-dimensional scale and thus represented by a single number.

    • Replies: @annamaria
  234. Chinaman says:
    @Okechukwu

    Some ground rules since you don’t seem to be familiar with how this work…

    Rule 1: No in-fighting amongst non- whites. Don’t give them the satisfaction. I don’t talk about IQ of African blacks and you don’t talk shit about the very people who helping to build Africa.

    Rule 2: Chinese should talk about low IQ of white people, you should talk about sometime else…like marathons or basketball.

    • LOL: Pincher Martin
    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  235. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @dc.sunsets

    Since life is the ultimate test of all, and intelligence is a contributor (major one) to all, then tests that have positive correlation to life success contain validity.

    Yes, but what lacks validity are the claims IQ-ists make as to the extent of the positive correlation between IQ test results and life success. Then there’s the question of what they mean by “life success”. Surely only those of very little insight into life’s big questions follow the IQ-ists in equating “life success” with “net worth.”

    Good luck creating a test of any kind of general, broadly applicable talent that doesn’t look like one of the IQ tests you abhor.

    No thanks. I have better things to do that pursue such a will-o-the-wisp.

    However, if I were young person for some reason committed to the study of human mental ability, I would consider carefully what the dictionary says is the meaning of “Intelligence” then I would think about measuring what that definition implies it would be sensible to measure.

    Thus, I would look at the ability to acquire and use knowledge and skills, and I would try to break down performance according to the neurological basis of information acquisition and use (on the assumption that intelligence is not one thing but a collection of largely independent faculties, each largely dependent on its own brain module).

    The acquisition of knowledge, for example, would need to be considered according as whether it is auditory, visual, olfactory, etc., whether it is short term or long term, whether it is recalled as sensed or in modified form, e.g., is memory verbatim, photographic, etc., or is the information recalled in processed form? And many etceteras.

    Psychology could be an interesting field of research provided one could make a path through the pseudoscience. But the way is blocked by the psych practitioners selling snake oil. That’s why some, perhaps most, of the good psychological research is now conducted by people outside the field — economists, for example.

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
  236. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Steve2

    Re: IQ tests:

    Loss of dimensionality

    Yes, that’s a neat way of summarizing the problem with the thesis that one number measures all. Likewise with my high school class rank: first in the sciences, last in Latin, overall just an average kid, which was no doubt a fair assessment, but it wouldn’t have been much use to a careers councillor, or someone considering my application for employment.

    Glad you enjoyed the Miserere.

  237. So AM do try to focus on what is at issue, namely, does an IQ test score measure the ability to acquire and use knowledge and skills. For example, does it mean that if Albert Einstein was the world’s greatest physicist, then he must have been just about the world’s most intelligent man and that, furthermore, he could also have written better plays that Shakespeare or a better Requiem Mass than Mozart, had he put his mind to it?

    It’s a crude measurement, Canned Sulky.

    I’ve played basketball with dozens of people who are taller than Michael Jordan’s 6’6″ height. Only one of them made it to the NBA.

    Does that mean height doesn’t matter for playing basketball? Should the NBA stop measuring prospective players because it fails on its own to make detailed predictions about success in basketball?

    Here’s something else for you to contemplate, Sulky.

    In any field in which a particular quality is important, such as height in basketball or intelligence for physics, that trait’s importance for success diminishes the higher someone rises.

    Great NBA players, for example, rarely talk about their height as the reason they’re great basketball players. Why would they? Nearly everyone who plays in the NBA is already tall, and when an important quality is common it’s not separates people.

    Michael Jordan was just an averaged-sized man in the NBA. Obviously, his height is not what made him better than his peers. His quickness, jumping ability, competitiveness, work ethic, etc., all mattered more because his height advantage was cancelled out.

    Similarly, Einstein was a brilliant man and almost assuredly would’ve done very well on an average IQ test. But so would all his peers. Some of them almost certainly would’ve scored higher, for Einstein was not considered the most naturally gifted intellect in their circles. Like Jordan and his height, intellect is not what separated Einstein from his peers. Other factors were more important.

    • Agree: dc.sunsets
  238. annamaria says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Mister, instead of pretending on original thinking, why don’t you mention the name of H. Gardner, the author of a book on the theory of multiple intelligence? (The basics of the theory were borrowed from Chinese, no less).

    Also, I do not need your direction on what I should focus my attention on. You don’t have any scientific of philosophic gravitas to make your demands. Just go and invent your own test of general intelligence. Prove your intellectual worth, in short.

  239. @CanSpeccy

    Meh.

    It was nice to discover that my IQ was certainly high enough to expect I could successfully teach myself to play the piano. I don’t actually have an IQ test result, I have a test result from the GRE from back when it was g-loaded enough to be considered a surrogate for IQ tests.

    I guess I find it interesting that you tilt at windmills here. Whatever IQ tests reveal, it has real-world application if only because it provides an alternative explanation for differences between groups of people.

    If Adam seems unable to learn long division and Bruce learns it easily with one pass, we might start asking if Adam understand the language used by the teacher, or other things, but eventually we may ask if Adam simply lacks the brain to learn long division. There are people who cannot learn long division, by the way. Do you doubt this?

    Now if there’s a whole bunch of Adams and a whole bunch of Bruces, that may still be okay, but if their skin color (or some other obvious attribute) is different, suddenly we can’t imagine that it has something to do with physiology.

    That’s my rub here.

    I reject being robbed blind, deaf and dumb to fix what cannot be fixed, just because religious zealots have determined that physiologic explanations are automatically rejected. This is the position of people who straight-out object to a century of IQ testing (including the Uniform Test for joining the military) revealing that half of all blacks in America cannot be trained how to do even relatively rudimentary tasks (such as support work in the military.)

    There are two basic explanations for groups’ relative differences in outcome. (1) is preferred, and it blames the underperformance of Team B on Team W. But what if the actual reason is (2) found in Team B, something Team B members can no more change than they can flap their arms and fly?

    How much money (capital, resources) should be taken from productive members of Team W and dumped on Team B (and those providing services to Team B, which includes a lot of Team W members) to “fix” something that is INNATE?

    Better yet, how much of that do you put on the Great MasterCard? And who gets blamed when that MasterCard one day is found to have a credit limit?

  240. Okechukwu says:
    @Pincher Martin

    In regards to Africans, isn’t everyone else sort of supreme?

    Take your ignorant ass to Africa. There you will find people who are superior to you in every conceivable way. They can buy and sell you too.

    Frankly, the disparity is so great that most people avert their eyes and prefer not to notice. It’s never something to brag about. When’s the last time you heard someone say, “Gosh, I’m worried about the challenges posed by what the Africans are doing” when it’s being applied to some positive accomplishment off the playing fields?

    That must be why companies and countries are tripping over each other trying to set up shop in Africa. Africa is recognized as the next frontier of relatively untapped markets and immense human capital.

    Many of you dimwits regard Russia as some sort of promised land for white nationalism. Unfortunately for you, Russia doesn’t love you the same way. They’d rather have Africans:

    Most accomplished civilizations prefer to make comparisons with other formidable opponents. Americans at various times, for example, have worried about the Chinese or the Soviets or the Germans or the Japanese. And vice versa. The Japanese have sometimes been worried about Americans or the Soviets. The Germans have sometimes worried about the Russians or French or English. Etc.

    So what destitute and disorderly European shithole did your people flee from and has anyone ever worried about them as a peer or adversary?

    No one worries about the challenges posed from positive African accomplishments, only from the negative ones.

    Everyone is more worried about the negative actions of non-Africans. You, for example, sitting on your fat ass spewing hate 24/7 are contributing negatively to humanity. Not even to mention all the very negative and potentially world-ending excesses of western culture which all of humanity worries about daily.

    Most of us would be relieved if you Africans just got your shit together.

    You’re a lying piece of shit. Your entire ideology thrives on African dysfunction and pathology. So much so that if no dysfunction or pathology exists you’ll make it up. You paradoxically lament the presence of Africans in Western countries while at the same time you believe your dogma prospers from African failure. That right there is a bright shinning example of the stupidity of white nationalists. Because humans are a migratory species who will always seek greener pastures over the farthest horizon. It is, after all, why Europeans fled their dysfunctional shitholes in the greatest mass migration in human history. So white nationalists, being dumber than dirt and lacking the faculty of reason, are contributing to the narrative that Africa is such a disaster than Africans must flee to Europe.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  241. Okechukwu says:
    @Chinaman

    Some ground rules since you don’t seem to be familiar with how this work

    You don’t get to set any ground rules. This is not Communist China. I say whatever I want to say.

    No in-fighting amongst non- whites. Don’t give them the satisfaction.

    Seriously, do you know how many sycophantic Chinese morons are on Unz Review doing precisely that, usually with the goal of currying favor with their white masters? Are you familiar with Uncle Wong, Daniel Chieh, just to name one such obsequious, bootlicking coolie?

    I don’t talk about IQ of African blacks and you don’t talk shit about the very people who helping to build Africa.

    The Africans have a high enough IQ to resist some of this “help” of which Chinese altruism is never the prime motivator:

    Sierra Leone only the latest African country to rethink a Chinese loan

    Last month, Sierra Leone canceled a Chinese loan to build the $318 million Mamamah International Airport in Freetown, a legacy project of the country’s previous government. The World Bank and IMF raised concerns about Sierra Leone’s debt, and the new government concluded the project was “uneconomical.”

    Chinese projects can be prone to delays and high costs that result in potential debt traps, especially when the deals are inked without proper risk assessment. But these concerns are nothing new, and African countries have canceled Chinese financing for years as a way out, leading either to renegotiation of the loan or abandonment of the infrastructure project.

    In 2007, Comibel, a firm with 15% interest from the Gabonese state and 85% interest from Chinese investors, decided to mine unexploited iron in northeast Gabon. A China Eximbank loan was to cover the $3 billion project cost. But in 2009, Comibel allegedly breached the contract; the government was forced to revise the agreement and cancel the financing after the lapse.

    In 2011, Chad signed a $1 billion contract with China CAMC Engineering for the construction of a new international airport, also funded by a China Eximbank loan agreement. However, the financing was canceled, likely owing to high costs; the project status remains unclear.

    In 2016, Namibia canceled a $537 million airport upgrade, supported by China Eximbank concessional loans and contracted to a Chinese construction group, after public outcry over high costs. Namibian President Hage Geingob is reportedly working on a new agreement for Chinese financing, and negotiations appear to be ongoing.

    https://www.axios.com/sierra-leone-latest-african-country-to-rethink-a-chinese-loan-9b91a4aa-cfcb-4813-9b6b-17f40762b9c8.html

    Chinese should talk about low IQ of white people, you should talk about sometime else…like marathons or basketball.

    Unfortunately, Chinese Unz posters are low-IQ themselves. How is it going to look, low-IQ Chinamen talking about low-IQ white people?

    • Replies: @Chinaman
  242. ‘Murka lowest IQ country,
    ‘Cause they let it be stolen
    On Schiffty national TV
    By the Communist golem.

  243. Okechukwu says:
    @annamaria

    “I have the mind of a god… You do not deserve to witness even the shadow of my wisdom.”

    — You are a clinical case walking.

    LOL. You just knew Annamaria would fall for this. And she’s on here bloviating on IQ.

    I almost thought about not giving her a heads up. It would have been very funny to see her spin her wheels and become increasingly apoplectic responding to the impostor.

  244. @Okechukwu

    Swamp Okefenokee,

    You misunderstand. Nobody worries about sub-Saharan Africa as a competitor. That doesn’t mean companies don’t want to sell there. Companies sell to any idiots they can find. And SSA has a billion people. Many companies are also looking to tap into the continent’s many abundant natural resources.

    But human capital in Africa that’s competitive? No one in the world is worried about it. For example, some Western companies and governments are extremely concerned about Chinese companies stealing their technical know-how and using it to seize a larger market share in whatever the tech is used for. But no one worries about that with Africa. Similarly, over the last fifty years, American car companies have had to adjust to the competition in the U.S. market from German cars, Japanese cars, and Korean cars. But none of them are worried about competition from African car companies.

    Those are just a couple of examples. I could go on and on with many more.

    You’re a lying piece of shit. Your entire ideology thrives on African dysfunction and pathology.

    You’re wrong. Most Americans don’t think about Africa at all. They think about African-Americans, but not Africa.

    But to the degree some white Americans do think about Africa, they hope and pray that the people of the continent get their shit together. Nothing would make them happier than a successful Africa. That’s because most white Americans are a hopeful people, and they don’t buy into any notions of any people’s superiority. But their noble feelings don’t change anything about the reality of Africa.

    This doesn’t mean the continent’s future is dark. Your economies will grow. Your average life expectancy will rise. You will get a lot of financial aid, a lot of technical advice, and a truckload of Western economists and other social scientists from around the world giving your future the big collective thumbs up. Life will probably become easier for many of you.

    But what you won’t get is anywhere close to equality of results with the quality of life in the leading nations. There’s a good reason for that and it’s not because you’re being picked on.

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  245. If a culture based on guns and corporations
    Put their money in bankrupt banks and leveraged funds
    To school their kids in wokeism and mental castration
    And graduate to Chinese goods and endless duns,
    Are they intelligent
    Or rather demented?

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  246. CanSpeccy says:
    @SeekerofthePresence

    Are they intelligent
    Or rather demented?

    They are globalists intent on destroying the independent sovereign nation state. You do that by destroying the people. Its a racial and cultural genocide, to make way for international rule by the global institutions, the UN, WTO, various security organizations, all under the influence of the money power, the banks, the global corporations and the dynamic members of the billionaire class.

  247. Chinaman says:
    @Okechukwu

    Dude, where is all this animosity coming from ? You are falling for their taunts and biting like a rabid dog at everything. I have no intention to join the mud wrestling hatefest you are having with them.

    Can’t deny there are many obsequious Uncle Wong’s, that’s what they do to survive in America. I don’t live there. Most Chinese know their black and white, “white and Wong”.

    I do have a low IQ compared to my peer group but I will just say a low-IQ chinaman is an oxymoron in the context of what we are discussing. Instead of getting hung up with IQ numbers let’s just look at problem solving skills. The Chinese are at the frontier of human achievements. Landing on the dark side of the moon, quantum computing, genetic engineering, 5G. They are solving a lot of practical problems in Africa too as you know. Not necessarily altruistic but the outcome is for the betterment of humanity.

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  248. Anonymous[377] • Disclaimer says:

    “Africa is recognized as the next frontier of relatively untapped markets and immense human capital. ”

    LOL, Africa is a fucking shithole where it is next to impossible to extract ANY value. The only value in Africa is natural resources. The africans are of NEGATIVE economic value, as they are literally everywhere they’re found. The collapse of Rhodesia and now South Africa, one would have thought might have clued people in (or Detroit or Baltimore, or… ad infinitum)

    It’s all so tiresome. Empire of Dust.

    Why does nobody care about the persistent asian-hispanic IQ gap?

    I cannot believe in this day and age we still have people insisting blacks have cognitive abilities equal to other races, when there are literally decades of transracial adoption studies, separated twins studies, and so forth out there.

  249. Reezy says:
    @Okechukwu

    The hypothesis that the most intelligent people genetically are likely to be found in Black Africa is supported by Neil deGrasse Tyson:

    NdT is the perfect example of black “scientific” achievement, i.e. a smooth talking negro with effectively zero actual contributions to research. Let me acquaint you with the Kardashian Index:

    The Kardashian Index (K-Index), named after Kim Kardashian, is a measure of the discrepancy between a scientist’s social media profile and publication record.

    Take a wild guess at who sits at the very top of the list? Yeeeup you guessed it, it’s Magic Black Science Man™, Neil mawwfuggin’ D-Grassay TYSON!

    Inb4 you dismiss what I said, cuz you know “Nigguh Das Raycisss”, lemme also inform you that even numerous NPC Redditors have long since realized Magic Black Science Man’s afro likely accounted for more of his apparently large cranial volume, rather than actual grey matter; not to mention he’s also just a straight-up asshole.

    So not only is it hilariously embarrassing on your part, as it fully reveals your abysmal level of understanding of the state of real science, and how it’s actually done (not surprising given your *cough*culture*cough*). It’s also quite ironic that you’re propping up this showman (if one were to be generous) / clown (a more apt title I think most who know the real situation would agree), and citing him as some pinnacle of intellectual prowess. Not that I’m surprised, gotta represent a fellow brutha amirite!

    In short you’re nothing more than just another tribal groupie brandishing your spear before chucking it. Of course that was my prior, which was quickly confirmed by a half second glance at any single one of your dozens or so screeds in this article alone. But I want YOU to acknowledge this too, you funny little monkey you.

    Now before you chimp out at all the troof I dropped, I’ll say that NdT is not without contributions to science in general. Popularizers do have their place in the science world/community, even if many of them, and particularly so in the case of this fellow brutha whom you idol, are closer to entertainers than scientists.

    In other words, looks like even (especially?) in the scientific community, that (in)famous inflated sense of self-worth and braggadocious nature serve you negroes well.

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
    , @res
    , @Okechukwu
  250. @Reezy

    Whoever is posting as Okechukwu is laughing himself silly watching you all respond to a parody account.

    How far does he have to push it before you realize it’s a joke?

    • Replies: @Reezy
    , @Okechukwu
  251. Reezy says:
    @dc.sunsets

    Possibly so. Though a quick scan through his comment history (close to 1.5k instances of the exact same type of drivel, spanning 3+ years) suggests that, unless he’s a truly dedicated multi-year troll, in which case he’d arguably be even more pathetic than in the more prosaic situation of him being just another negroe with a chip on his shoulder, then the MO you suggest is unlikely.

    In any case, even if you’re right in that he’s a hobby-less troll rather than just a mindless negroe automaton, Poe’s law is in effect. So this type of comment degeneration is inevitable.

    • Agree: res
    • Replies: @mikemikev
    , @dc.sunsets
  252. mikemikev says:
    @Reezy

    Maybe trolling the internet is some people’s job.

    • Replies: @Oliver D. Smith
  253. res says:
    @Reezy

    Not only is NdGT at the top of the list, he leads in K-index by almost an order of magnitude! His K-index is 11129 and the second highest K-index on the top 50 (by followers) list is 1256.

    The Kardashian Index Calculator might be of interest. Not sure it is working right now though for getting Twitter followers, but that is easy enough to find separately and calculate the K-index once you have Fc from the citations.
    http://theinformationalturn.net/kardashian-index/

  254. Okechukwu says:
    @Pincher Martin

    You misunderstand. Nobody worries about sub-Saharan Africa as a competitor.

    Who worries about anyone as a competitor? People aren’t losing sleep worrying about the stout competition from Russia or Australia. What exactly is your point here?

    Companies sell to any idiots they can find. And SSA has a billion people. Many companies are also looking to tap into the continent’s many abundant natural resources.

    Same applies to China, dumbass. Everyone is trying to tap that 1.3 billion market. And, of course, it’s every corporation’s dream to tap the America’s voracious consumer market. In fact every company wants to tap every market. Again, your point?
    ,

    But human capital in Africa that’s competitive? No one in the world is worried about it.

    Why should anyone be worried? What is it with you and worrying about people succeeding? Get off the Internet and take your meds.

    No one’s worried about anyone. I’ve never heard anyone say they were worried about the human capital potential of Europeans or Americans or Asians or South Americans or South Asians.

    Chinese companies stealing their technical know-how and using it to seize a larger market share in whatever the tech is used for. But no one worries about that with Africa.

    Not now, dummy. But if/when African companies start behaving as rapaciously as Chinese companies — if African companies start stealing intellectual property, using slave labor and dumping products, then they will worry, won’t they?

    Similarly, over the last fifty years, American car companies have had to adjust to the competition in the U.S. market from German cars, Japanese cars, and Korean cars. But none of them are worried about competition from African car companies.

    Same with India, Pakistan, Argentina, Russia, France, China, Canada, Spain and so on. No one is worried about their car companies either.

    You’re wrong. Most Americans don’t think about Africa at all.

    Africans aren’t thinking about Americans either.

    But to the degree some white Americans do think about Africa, they hope and pray that the people of the continent get their shit together. Nothing would make them happier than a successful Africa.

    You had it right the first time. Most Americans aren’t thinking about Africa and most Africans aren’t thinking about America.

    That’s because most white Americans are a hopeful people

    All humans are hopeful.

    This doesn’t mean the continent’s future is dark. Your economies will grow

    I’m an American, doofus, born and bred. I’ve been called an All-American boy.

    You will get a lot of financial aid, a lot of technical advice, and a truckload of Western economists and other social scientists from around the world giving your future the big collective thumbs up. Life will probably become easier for many of you.

    Just like USAID and other aid agencies and NGO’s did/does in Eastern Europe. So white skin isn’t the magic elixir, is it?

    But what you won’t get is anywhere close to equality of results with the quality of life in the leading nations.

    You’re too stupid for words. No one knows what the future holds. The only certainty is change. In the future it may be European refugees clamoring to get into African countries. Everything in life and in the universe is cyclical.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  255. Okechukwu says:
    @Reezy

    No one cares what some clownish Internet troll says about a world-renowned scientist like Neil deGrasse Tyson. Neil’s thesis, however, has remained unchallenged. The hypothesis that Africans (black people) are the smartest people in the world has not and cannot be refuted.

    I have to chuckle when you clowns state with bated breath that science is on the cusp of these grand discoveries that are going to once and for all identify the genetic architecture of intelligence. The inference being that as a consequence of that, your idiotic racist pseudoscientfic beliefs will be substantiated. But you idiots are in for a rude awakening. I believe science will one day vindicate Neil’s hypothesis that the most intelligent people genetically are in Sub-Saharan Africa. It’s the idea that makes the most sense.

    • LOL: res
    • Replies: @annamaria
    , @Reezy
  256. Okechukwu says:
    @dc.sunsets

    This nitwit is probably the impostor.

    Amazing that they allow impersonations here. Left unchecked that’ll turn this site into an even bigger garbage dump than it already is.

  257. Okechukwu says:
    @Chinaman

    Dude, where is all this animosity coming from ? You are falling for their taunts and biting like a rabid dog at everything. I have no intention to join the mud wrestling hatefest you are having with them.

    You started flinging mud at me. I understand that English isn’t your first language, so I’ll give you a bit of a pass. But don’t play dumb and act like you don’t know when you’re insulting someone.

    a low-IQ chinaman is an oxymoron in the context of what we are discussing

    Not any more oxymoronic than any other low-IQ (fill in the blank). There are 1.3 billion Chinese in China alone. The overwhelming majority of them aren’t going to set the world on fire in terms of intelligence. But that’s true of every grouping. My point is that China isn’t better or worse than any other nationality or ethnicity.

    There are sinister, machiavellian motivations animating the white nationalist East Asian IQ trope, which you seem to have fallen for. They’re willing to surrender a few IQ points as a shield against accusations of racism. Then they will assert that the totality of attributes favorable to themselves, like “creativity,” makes East Asians inferior to them.

    The Chinese are at the frontier of human achievements. Landing on the dark side of the moon, quantum computing, genetic engineering, 5G.

    Yes. But if China wants to play with the big boys it has to do things that weren’t already done 60 years prior. And it has to create organically rather than simply copying. I mean, I’ve seen Chinese “stealth jets” and “stealth bombers” that were exact facsimiles of American models. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. China seems to copy everything.

    They are solving a lot of practical problems in Africa too as you know. Not necessarily altruistic but the outcome is for the betterment of humanity.

    Yes, the Chinese are doing some good in Africa. Generally speaking, they have a healthier and better attitude toward Africa than the West. I think both parties can work toward each other’s mutual benefit.

  258. annamaria says:
    @Okechukwu

    “The hypothesis that Africans (black people) are the smartest people in the world has not and cannot be refuted.”
    — Okechukwu, your actions refute your words: You have escaped your black people to live among white people. You hate white people — and you believe that white people practice a racist pseudoscience — yet you prefer the society of white people and dread a return to your tribe.

    1. Either you are a person of low intelligence, who for some silly reasons prefers to live among the hostile and unintelligent white people, or 2. you have serious doubts about the intelligence of blacks in Africa and beyond and thus hate the idea of living among blacks. You cannot have it both ways.

    • Troll: Okechukwu
  259. Reezy says:
    @Okechukwu

    I believe science will one day vindicate Neil’s hypothesis that the most intelligent people genetically are in Sub-Saharan Africa.

    Pfffffffftttt aight dawg that was a good run, but your troll cover is blown, cuz not even that clown NdT is dumb enough to propose shit that retarded. Guess DC.sunsets was right, and the real joke was on those of us who bit on your bait.

    Seriously though, consider getting a life, instead of chilling in your mom’s basement pretending to be an Afrocentrist retard. How entertaining can this shit really be after years on end?

    • Troll: Okechukwu
  260. @Okechukwu

    Swamp Okefenokee,

    Who worries about anyone as a competitor?

    Are you illiterate? Are you only reading half the words written to you? I just gave you a short list of examples.

    No one’s worried about anyone.

    Perhaps in your world that’s true. You seem pretty simple, and simple people don’t think about the future very much or about working as a group to compete at the highest level.

    But less simple people think about the future and they think about competing. At the national level, they want to win space races and wars, and at the company level they want to win market share in the next technologies.

    Same applies to China, dumbass. Everyone is trying to tap that 1.3 billion market. And, of course, it’s every corporation’s dream to tap the America’s voracious consumer market. In fact every company wants to tap every market. Again, your point?

    You forget what you write the moment you write it, don’t you?

    You’re the one who started this line of discussion by telling me it was a sign of SSA’s competitiveness that companies were going there to sell. But that’s not a sign Africans are special; it’s a sign they have a pulse.

    I’m an American, doofus, born and bred. I’ve been called an All-American boy.

    Not a very good American, though.

    Just like USAID and other aid agencies and NGO’s did/does in Eastern Europe. So white skin isn’t the magic elixir, is it?

    Ninety-five percent of sub-Saharan Africans dream of the day they have it as good as Eastern Europeans. The other five percent live mostly on oil income or in small tourist havens.

    And Eastern Europe has taken up nowhere near as much aid as sub-Saharan Africa.

    No one knows what the future holds.

    Just stick with yourself, Okefenokee, and that statement will be true.

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  261. Okechukwu says:
    @Pincher Martin

    Are you illiterate? Are you only reading half the words written to you? I just gave you a short list of examples.

    So who’s worried about Russian washing machines, or even British washing machines? I gave you a list also of all the countries in the world, many of them major countries, who don’t produce anything anyone’s worried about.

    You seem pretty simple, and simple people don’t think about the future very much or about working as a group to compete at the highest level.

    This is rich. You’re turning into, arguably, the dumbest person on the thread. Keep in mind, this is a thread featuring some of the dumbest people on the entire Internet: Res, Annamaria, dc sunsets, mikemikev, this new troll reezy and quite a few others.

    Anyway, I guess I shouldn’t expect brilliance from someone who thinks it’s impossible for an African to be successful in China

    You’re the one who started this line of discussion by telling me it was a sign of SSA’s competitiveness that companies were going there to sell.

    I said “set up shop,” dummy. Companies are going there not only to sell but also to invest; to leverage the human capital and brain power there. You see, in the real world Africans are presumed to be just as intelligent and just as capable as everyone else. Because they are. That’s the real world as distinct from your echo-chambers.

    Not a very good American, though.

    White nationalism is on the FBI terror watch list. You are a white nationalist, making you a poor excuse for an American. You are actually an enemy of the state. You are promoting an ideology, which, were it to actualize, would destroy the United States.

    Ninety-five percent of sub-Saharan Africans dream of the day they have it as good as Eastern Europeans.

    You took a poll, did you? Where’s your data?

    I know it’s hopeless, but one thing I’ve tried to drill into the rock hard heads of you clowns is that life is complex, layered and nuanced.

    This is a neighborhood in Ghana:

    This is a neighborhood in Slovenia:

    I concede that these are cherrypicked pics but it makes the point.

    The other five percent live mostly on oil income or in small tourist havens.

    No, dummy. The biggest oil producer in Africa is Nigeria. But with nearly 200 million people it produces half the oil of Kuwait, which has only 4 million people. Oil in Nigeria is a drain on development, a magnet for malfeasance and, ultimately, something they would be far better off without. Look up resource curse.

    You accused me of being simple, yet you are writing like a 3 year old with half his brain missing. I’m the one trying to teach you to see the world as the complex organism it is and to mirror that complexity in your thinking. Just shut your mouth and pay attention and you may learn something.

    And Eastern Europe has taken up nowhere near as much aid as sub-Saharan Africa.

    The point is they do get aid. Moreover, since the collapse of the Soviet Union the West has spent trillions of dollars on aid to Eastern Europe. Aid to Africa doesn’t even come close to the scale and breadth of aid to Eastern Europe.

    In most cases the so-called aid to Africa hurts rather than helps, as it is used to put Western farmers and producers on welfare by subsidizing their product dumping in Africa, driving Africa’s own farmers and producers out of business. Most of the aid is in the form of loans with usurious interest rates

    What’s more, the West steals $20 dollars from Africa for every dollar in so-called aid it gives.

    The whole aid to Africa thing is a scam the Africans can do without.

    • Replies: @res
    , @Pincher Martin
  262. res says:
    @Okechukwu

    It is always interesting to follow up on the examples of African success we are given. That Ghana photo is no exception. That development is Trasacco Valley. Here is a master’s thesis from The University of British Columbia which has some discussion of it: https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/ubctheses/24/items/1.0300342

    The developer is given as Ernesto Tricone. But it turns out the author couldn’t even get that right. His name is Ernesto Taricone: https://goodmanamc.blogspot.com/p/ernesto-taricone.html
    He is of Italian origin, but moved to Ghana in his teens. Trasacco Valley is located near Accra and the homes cost between $1 million and $3 million to purchase. This is in a country with a 2018 GNI per capita of $2130 (US $62,850).
    https://data.worldbank.org/?locations=GH-US
    So relative to GNI these are the rough equivalent of $30+ million houses in the US. I wonder who is living there? From the thesis:

    Per the outcome of his interview with property managers and 30 homeowners, Grant uncovered that, as of 2004, 65% of the occupants were Ghanaians while the remaining 35% were foreign nationals, including expats and companies that had acquired some of the properties to use to as guest houses for business purposes (Grant, 2005).

    This assertion is further corroborated by the fact that 50% of the households owned extra residential properties in Accra, while 80% owned properties abroad

    The other interesting trait revealed by the fact that the over 70% of the same occupants have other residential assets abroad indicates or confirms that a segment of Accra‘s new middle classes are transmigrants—Ghanaians living and working abroad who have maintained (or are maintaining) strong connections with their homeland through residential investment—as well as businessmen and corporate executives with strong international connections who end up spending part of their year working in different countries. These two groups, distinct from Ghanaian returnees from the diaspora who have resettled home for good, are part of the subset of the Accra’s new middle class group I labeled the ―global cohort‖ in chapter four, who are also shaping or contributing to the proliferation of gated enclaves and other luxury consumption spaces in Accra.

    But proof of transnationalism in Trasacco Valley is confirmed by the identities of the some of the publicly-known Ghanaian occupants of the enclave such as the soccer star John Pantsil, who now plays for popular South African club Maritzburg United with past stints with top English clubs like Westham United and Fullan FC. Painstil and his cohorts like AC Milan-based Michael Essien and Sule Muntari spend most of their off-season holiday in Accra, hiding inside in gated enclaves such Trasacco Valley, where they ‘cool’ off with their nuclear family and selected friends, far from the prying eyes of the public

    Interesting definition of “middle class” there. Sure sounds like just regular folks to me.

    And let’s understand the Ghanaian economy a little better: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Ghana#Imports_and_Exports

    Ghana’s top export products in 2016 were crude petroleum ($2.66B), gold ($2.39B), cocoa beans ($2.27B), cocoa paste ($382M) and cocoa butter ($252M). Ghana’s top export destinations in 2016 were Switzerland ($1.73B), China ($1.06B), France ($939M), India ($789M) and the Netherlands ($778M).[28]

    Ghana’s top import categories in 2016 were refined petroleum ($2.18B), crude petroleum ($546M), gold ($428M), rice ($328M) and packaged medicaments ($297M). The nations with the highest value of imports to Ghana in 2016 were China ($4.1B), the Netherlands ($1.58B), the United States ($1.1B), Nigeria ($920M) and India ($668M).[28]

    Here is some information on inequality in Ghana: https://www.undp.org/content/dam/ghana/docs/Doc/Inclgro/Ghana-unicef%20Inequality%20Briefing%20Paper%20FINAL%20DRAFT%20Apr%202014.pdf

    Here is a paper discussing income and health in Accra: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3516308

    I think what we are seeing can be summarized as: it is good to be rich in Ghana, poor not so much. And most of the people are poor.

    And since we are comparing to Slovenia, here are some towns there:
    https://theculturetrip.com/europe/slovenia/articles/the-top-5-towns-in-slovenia/

    I kind of like this one:

    And let’s take a look at the other side of Ghana: https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/EPoverty/Ghana/AmnestyInternational.docx

    There are currently 23 slums in Ghana and 11 slums in Accra – this includes Tema and other major towns in the Greater Accra Region.

    If you click on images at this search: https://www.google.com/search?q=ghana+slums
    there is a broad selection available. Here is a sample.

    • Troll: Okechukwu
    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  263. @Okechukwu

    So who’s worried about Russian washing machines, or even British washing machines?

    Washing machines? Who the hell mentioned washing machines?

    What the fuck is wrong with your brain?

    I spoke of war and space races. I mentioned market share in new technologies. In other words, competition at the highest level.

    And you respond with talk of a technology that first became automated when Theodore Roosevelt was in office and was being mass-produced by the nineteen-twenties?

    What are you going to talk about next? Tractors and water mills?

    Anyway, I guess I shouldn’t expect brilliance from someone who thinks it’s impossible for an African to be successful in China

    Forget China. I’m looking for evidence Africans can compete ANYWHERE in the world.

    The most impressive and accomplished individuals of African ancestry are in the United States. And we know what the situation is like here.

    I said “set up shop,” dummy. Companies are going there not only to sell but also to invest…

    Yes, they want to invest in natural resources, not invest in the human capital of Africa. And I’m not talking about Oprah opening up a school or Bill Gates throwing some money at some doofus looking for misplaced African geniuses or other such vanity projects. I’m talking about companies rushing to Africa to invest in the people because they see money at the end of it.

    White nationalism is on the FBI terror watch list. You are a white nationalist, making you a poor excuse for an American.

    I’m not a white nationalist. You, however, are a dumb excuse for a human being, That’s not a crime. The FBI will never look into it. But it still hurts the country more than an opinion does.

    You took a poll, did you? Where’s your data?

    You don’t need a poll, dummy. Just look at the economic data, which can be found everywhere.

    No, dummy. The biggest oil producer in Africa is Nigeria. But with nearly 200 million people it produces half the oil of Kuwait, which has only 4 million people. Oil in Nigeria is a drain on development, a magnet for malfeasance and, ultimately, something they would be far better off without. Look up resource curse.

    Resources are only a curse if you have no brains to begin with.

    The U.S. is the biggest producer of oil in the world today – a title it reclaimed six years ago after fracking boosted production. How much of a curse has that oil been for the U.S.?

    The U.S. was also the biggest oil producer in the world for much of the late 19th and 20th centuries. How much of a curse was oil for the U.S. back then?

    The “resource curse” is only a curse if you have a low national IQ.

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  264. Okechukwu says:
    @res

    You’re too dumb to talk to, Res. I’m not taking the bait.

    • LOL: res
    • Replies: @res
    , @Pincher Martin
  265. res says:
    @Okechukwu

    If I am so dumb than it is extremely sad that you are so rarely able to respond effectively to my points.

    I do enjoy the way you continue to demonstrate your lack of willpower by responding to me.

    P.S. To those contending Okechukwu is a parody account I suggest you review his early comments. He initially commented only in Chanda Chisala’s blog (or in related posts like http://www.unz.com/jman/rebutting-chanda-chisala/ ) in a somewhat reasonable way. His first comment elsewhere (about a year later) was on this post (which I somehow managed to miss until now):
    http://www.unz.com/article/assault-on-psychology-research-on-race-differences-anathematized/
    His first comment in Dr. Thompson’s blog appear in this post:
    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/growing-intelligence/
    and he appears to have become increasingly hostile since then. I think Okechukwu is doing some trolling (e.g. being intentionally inflammatory and insulting as well as exaggerating various points) but is on the whole sincere.

  266. Okechukwu says:
    @Pincher Martin

    Washing machines? Who the hell mentioned washing machines?

    You mentioned that no one was worried about economic competition from Africa, did you not? Are you even aware of what you’re writing?

    I spoke of war and space races. I mentioned market share in new technologies. In other words, competition at the highest level.

    Why would Sub-Saharan Africa currently be in the mix in space races and new technologies? Or competition at the highest level? Is the Middle East in the mix? Is Eastern Europe in the mix? Is Southern Europe in the mix? Is Central Europe in the mix? Is Latin America in the mix? Is Central Asia in the mix? Is Southeast Asia in the mix, Etc, Etc.

    Think before you write. At this point you’re exhibiting a toxic mix of stupidity and insanity.

    Forget China. I’m looking for evidence Africans can compete ANYWHERE in the world.

    Africans are very competitive in America. People like me out-smart and out-compete people like you every day. We don’t have generational wealth or privilege, nor have our people been here for generations setting the stage for us. But we still kick your asses, don’t we?

    The most impressive and accomplished individuals of African ancestry are in the United States. And we know what the situation is like here.

    Questionable, but so what? There was a time when the most impressive Irish, Polish, Russians, Greeks and even English were in the United States. What’s your point exactly?

    Yes, they want to invest in natural resources, not invest in the human capital of Africa.

    The interesting thing is that all the information that should disabuse you of your stupidity and ignorance is at your fingertips on the very Internet you are using to write your junk.

    Here, let me help you out:

    Why Tech giants like Google and Microsoft are investing in Africa

    More than 100 local engineers and developers will be hired to work in the new Microsoft facilities in both countries across artificial intelligence, machine learning and mixed reality innovation, according to Microsoft. The plan is to grow this pool of workers to 500 by 2023.

    “Our desire is to recruit exceptional engineering talent across the continent that will build innovative solutions for global impact,”said Michael Fortin, Microsoft’s corporate vice president in a statement.

    https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/17/africa/tech-giants-in-africa-intl/index.html

    So tell me, dummy, are Google and Microsoft interested in African “natural resources?”

    I’m talking about companies rushing to Africa to invest in the people because they see money at the end of it.

    Generally, dumbass, that’s how investment works everywhere. So the companies rushing to Africa are expecting profits, even if those profits will materialize over a long time horizon. That’s how your own investments work, dummy. That’s how your 401k, stock portfolio, US Treasuries and real estate investments (assuming you have any of these assets) works. Even country-level “charity” such as from USAID is a big profit center for US companies. If US companies weren’t the predominant beneficiaries the constituency for large-scale foreign aid and the political will to sustain it would dry up.

    I’m not a white nationalist.

    Denying being a white nationalist is not, in and of itself, exculpatory. Few white nationalists will admit to being a white nationalist. That’s why we make our assessment based up words and deeds rather than your insincere denials.

    You don’t need a poll, dummy. Just look at the economic data, which can be found everywhere.

    You do need a poll or some other valid mechanism to substantiate your EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM that “Ninety-five percent of sub-Saharan Africans dream of the day they have it as good as Eastern Europeans.”

    Try to be factual and precise as opposed to pulling bullshit out of your ass.

    Resources are only a curse if you have no brains to begin with.

    So Russia has no brains?

    Why Russia fails to cope with ‘resource curse’

    https://russia-direct.org/analysis/why-russia-fails-cope-resource-curse

    The ‘Resource Curse’and Russia’s Economic Crisis

    https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/public/Research/Russia%20and%20Eurasia/100309inozemtsev.pdf

    Can Russia Escape the ‘Resource’ Curse?

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB108906451695855398

    The oil curse in Russia

    http://www.newslettereuropean.eu/oil-curse-russia/

    The U.S. is the biggest producer of oil in the world today – a title it reclaimed six years ago after fracking boosted production. How much of a curse has that oil been for the U.S.?

    Okay, you’re way out of your league and way out of your depth here. Let me explain things to you as I would a developmentally disabled third grader:

    Yes, the US is the worlds largest producer. But that production is in the hands of literally thousands of private companies. And by private companies I mean companies not under the control of the US government. I know that publicly traded companies, which many US oil companies are, technically, are not private. All the countries that suffer from a resource curse have several distinguishing features, of which government control of the production and marketing of the resource is a key element.

    What’s more, while the US is indeed the largest oil producer, its economy is extensively diversified, with oil representing a relatively small percentage of total US economic activity. Compare that to Russia, for example, which relies on oil and gas for 60% of its exports and 30% of its GDP. The numbers are even starker for more resource-dependent countries like Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, etc. Canada is also a major producer and exporter of oil (#4 producer) but one barely hears a peep from them because they too are far less reliant on oil than the aforementioned resource curse afflicted countries.

    All that being said, the US is a collection of states and Canada a collection of provinces. As such, both countries are affected by resource curses locally. North Dakota is cyclically devastated when oil busts and regenerated again when oil booms. The same is true of Alberta, Canada. Texas used to be in the same boat until it began making a concerted effort to diversify its economy. Now, Energy isn’t even among the top industries driving GDP growth in Texas.

    The “resource curse” is only a curse if you have a low national IQ.

    Umm…you mean like Russia?

    Just stick to your day job, which undoubtedly is scrubbing toilets. Do not try to discuss economics, oil and gas, science, history, genetics or even IQ, which you probably think is your forte.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
    , @annamaria
  267. @mikemikev

    In your case it is Mike:

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Michael_Coombs

    You’ve been banned for trolling on all these websites:

    Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Encylopedia Dramatica, Sci Forums, Science Forums, The Phora, Anthroscape, Political Forum, Christian Forums, Stumble Inn, Wikipedia, Wikiversity, Meta-Wiki, Reddit, Wikimedia Commons, Metapedia, Psience Quest, Egyptsearch, Nordisk, OpenPsych Forum, RationalWiki, RationalWikiWiki, The Beer Barrel, MootSF, Kiwi Farms, The Right Stuff, The Goyim Know.

    https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/people/mikemikev

    Even pro-hereditarian ‘race realist’ forums like OpenPsych banned you for being a troll:

    https://openpsych.net/forum/showthread.php?tid=188&pid=3063#pid3063

  268. @Okechukwu

    You’re too dumb to talk to, Res. I’m not taking the bait.

    You’ve taken Res’s bait so often that, in the brief time I’ve been here, he has tossed you up on the deck of his boat at least a dozen times and then tossed you right back into the water because you’re too much of a small fry to proudly display on his mantle.

    And you always go right back to his bait. If you don’t this time, it’s only because he’s recently handled you so roughly. I was wincing at the brutal factual way he laid out his last post. He gets the better of you every time. But you’ll eventually go back, just as the sow must return to the mire and the dog to his vomit. It’s in your nature.

    • Replies: @Chinaman
  269. @Okechukwu

    You mentioned that no one was worried about economic competition from Africa, did you not? Are you even aware of what you’re writing?

    One of us is certainly not getting this discussion. I’ll give you one hint: It’s not me.

    There’s no economic competition from Africa – low level or otherwise. Not even in washing machines. If Africa’s economy disappeared tomorrow, few people outside the continent would even notice. Someone looking for a diamond to buy his fiancee would see that the price of the rocks was a lot higher, but that’s about it. And the global market would adjust to that kind of scarcity in a heartbeat.

    Why would Sub-Saharan Africa currently be in the mix in space races and new technologies? Or competition at the highest level? Is the Middle East in the mix? Is Eastern Europe in the mix? Is Southern Europe in the mix? Is Central Europe in the mix? Is Latin America in the mix? Is Central Asia in the mix? Is Southeast Asia in the mix, Etc, Etc.

    No, the Middle East is not in the mix. Nor is South America. But those regions are rocks of economic stability compared to sub-Saharan Africa – and that’s saying something because neither is particularly stable.

    And Central Asia? Give me a break. There are fewer people in that entire region than there are in just the Democratic Republic of Congo or one of the larger Chinese provinces. But if want me to include it, okay. Central Asia is also not in the mix.

    But most of the rest of the world has something that they can compete on at the highest levels. Perhaps not the space race. Perhaps not high technology. But something. Even Southern Europe, Eastern Europe, and Southeast Asia.

    Sub-Saharan Africa has nothing. And there are a lot more sub-Saharan Africans than there are people in the other regions I just mentioned. A lot more.

    How bad is it? Just by itself, my state of forty million people in California outproduces the entire continent of one billion sub-Saharan Africans.

    Generally, dumbass, that’s how investment works everywhere.

    No, that’s not how it necessarily works. Certainly not in SSA. Investors are interested in the minerals, oil and other resources in Africa. The people in SSA are just an impediment to getting those things out to the global market. So you hire a few Africans and you pay off a few others. You say some kind words about how you are in it for the long haul and that you really, truly believe in Africa’s future. Then you pray that the Africans don’t go apeshit on your investment before you get a decent return.

    But you don’t really invest in the people because that’s not where the value in Africa lies.

    Denying being a white nationalist is not, in and of itself, exculpatory. Few white nationalists will admit to being a white nationalist. That’s why we make our assessment based up words and deeds rather than your insincere denials.

    I’m an anonymous poster at a website that allows some pretty extreme views. If I was a white nationalist, why wouldn’t I just own up to it?

    As for your assessment about my political nature, I really don’t care. Think what you like. But for those in the peanut gallery, I want to be on record saying that I’m not a white nationalist. Just in case there is someone out there who might read your words and take them seriously.

    So Russia has no brains?

    Russia’s problem is something else. It has little social capital (just like a few other parts of Eastern Europe). But that’s not because the Russians have resources, but because of their history and nature.

    If Russia had no oil and other resources, it wouldn’t be like Germany or Poland economically. It would be like Ukraine.

    Even so, Russia is in far better economic shape than sub-Saharan Africa. There’s really no comparison. And Russians are capable of making things and doing things that Africans won’t be doing even after a century of borrowing other people’s technology, if even then.

    Yes, the US is the worlds largest producer. But that production is in the hands of literally thousands of private companies.

    So? Does the “resource curse” claim that resources are only a curse if those resources are in the public’s hands? No it does not. It says that large holdings of resources inhibit economic growth. Period.

    And of course it’s untrue.

    What’s interesting is that the argument was originally applied to the Dutch, who by just about anyone standards are a fabulously wealthy people living in a mixed economy.

    Other places blessed with resources but which are still wealthy mixed economies are Australia and Norway.

    So much for the resource curse.

    North Dakota is cyclically devastated when oil busts and regenerated again when oil booms.

    You mean that when an industry suffers, the people working in it and the local regions in which it is most heavily concentrated, suffer, too?

    Wow, what an insight. I guess that never happens with, say, automobiles, huh?

    North Dakota today has the fifth highest GDP per capita among US states in the nation – much higher than that mixed economy called California. And with a much lower cost of living. So much for that resource curse.

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  270. annamaria says:
    @Okechukwu

    “People like me out-smart and out-compete people like you every day. ”

    — Yes, affirmative actions (designed and paid for by white people) turned to be a scam.

    “How a history of segregation contributes to an epidemic of violence in Chicago:” https://wgntv.com/2019/10/29/how-a-history-of-segregation-contributes-to-an-epidemic-of-violence-in-chicago/

    It is amazing how many Okechukwas do not want to live among their tribal geniuses in Africa but head instead for western countries, to live among white people. https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2019/08/26/the-coming-migration-out-of-sub-saharan-africa/

    The trip from Africa to Europe becomes possible when a young man can assemble a stake of about $2,000. Once he does, there is no better investment for him or his village than striking out for Europe. …

    Europe does not need an influx of youthful African labor, because both robotization and rising retirement ages are shrinking the demand for it. Migrant laborers cannot fund the European welfare state. In fact, they will undermine it, because the cost of schools, health, and other government services that philoprogenitive newcomers draw on exceeds their tax payments. Nor will the mass exodus help Africa.

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  271. @Reezy

    In any case, even if you’re right in that he’s a hobby-less troll rather than just a mindless negroe automaton,

    I’m not a computer genius, but I’d bet one of my kids could write a program that would automate producing exactly the same kind of content Okey-Dokey posts, with a script to scan Unz.com for places such things might not be entirely out of place.

    We greatly underestimate the ability of a few relatively smart people to create such an automated entity. Or, it could be as mike says, that there really are cubicle farms of people paid a decent wage to sh**post all day long.

    Truth is always stranger than fiction. And while “human stupidity is infinite,” I have difficulty believing anyone would actually spend the time I see “replying” to all this (on Unz.com, a host of other websites or–especially–on Twitter) without there being a $ sign attached.

    Even Wikipedia’s “power editors” are monetizing their monopoly.

    • Troll: Okechukwu
  272. Okechukwu says:
    @Pincher Martin

    There’s no economic competition from Africa – low level or otherwise.

    So what? As stated, there’s no economic competition from a lot of places and regions, including Eastern, Central Southern Europe. I want to know what point you are trying to make here.

    No, the Middle East is not in the mix. Nor is South America. But those regions are rocks of economic stability compared to sub-Saharan Africa – and that’s saying something because neither is particularly stable.

    Even if that were true (it isn’t), so what? Currently Africa has some of the fastest growing economies in the world, underscoring my point that nothing stays the same, the only constant being change. The African economies are looking to emulate and replicate the Asian Tigers. The Middle East and Latin America are not the models they aspire to.

    Africa’s ‘lion economies’ growth exceeds forecasts

    While many Europeans and North Americans still view the continent as poor, war-torn and desolate, Africans see more opportunities at home than outside the continent. In fact, many West African nations are booming.

    In West Africa, the majority of people are on the move but don’t leave the region. This south-south migration is contributing to the economic boom across its major capitals.

    “West Africans … are seven times more likely to move within West African countries than to go to Europe or North America,” Al Jazeera’s Nicolas Haque reports from Dakar.

    https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/02/africas-lion-economies-growth-exceeds-forecasts-180222112354500.html

    But most of the rest of the world has something that they can compete on at the highest levels. Perhaps not the space race. Perhaps not high technology. But something. Even Southern Europe, Eastern Europe, and Southeast Asia.

    I notice you can’t name this “something” these other places have that Africa lacks.

    How bad is it? Just by itself, my state of forty million people in California outproduces the entire continent of one billion sub-Saharan Africans.

    California has double the GDP of Russia. As a matter of fact, California just barely under-performs all of Eastern Europe in GDP.

    No, that’s not how it necessarily works. Certainly not in SSA. Investors are interested in the minerals, oil and other resources in Africa. The people in SSA are just an impediment to getting those things out to the global market. So you hire a few Africans and you pay off a few others. You say some kind words about how you are in it for the long haul and that you really, truly believe in Africa’s future. Then you pray that the Africans don’t go apeshit on your investment before you get a decent return.

    But you don’t really invest in the people because that’s not where the value in Africa lies

    That must be why they’re looking for Einsteins in Africa and tech hubs are sprouting up everywhere there, you dumb cunt.

    I’m an anonymous poster at a website that allows some pretty extreme views. If I was a white nationalist, why wouldn’t I just own up to it?

    The same reason Res and most other white nationalists won’t own up to it. Since white nationalism is really just Nazism by another name, and since you want to promote the fictional narrative that you are an impartial observer, and since you envision yourself as some sort of keyboard philosopher working assiduously to win hearts and minds, you know that to be diagnosed as a white nationalist would diminish your viability and impede your proselytization.

    But even the most closeted white nationalists emit certain telltale signals that they just can’t help producing and that are easy to decode. You with your fixation on black/African “inferiority” is one such signal. There’s really no reason for it. You can just go on with your miserable life and leave Africans alone. But your white nationalism/supremacy calls you to action because that is what is in your nature.

    Russia’s problem is something else. It has little social capital (just like a few other parts of Eastern Europe). But that’s not because the Russians have resources, but because of their history and nature.

    Oh, it’s cute that you’re trying to make excuses for the white nation of Russia while allowing absolutely no excuses for Africa and elsewhere. This is demonstrative of your white nationalist ideology. You just can’t help yourself. Your racist, hateful, white nationalist nature will always prevail against your mind’s attempts at a politically correct facade.

    Okay, if we’re in the excuse making business I got a million excuses for Africa.

    If Russia had no oil and other resources, it wouldn’t be like Germany or Poland economically. It would be like Ukraine.

    You have no idea. One thing that is undisputed is that oil, gas and minerals have retarded productivity in Russia and created nearly existential social fissures. For one thing, the fierce scramble during privatization to gobble up formerly state owned enterprises nearly destroyed Russia. Since then, corruption has been rampant and endemic, with the economy consistently weak. Any downturn in oil prices brings Russia to its knees. People abandon the ruble for dollars and euros, capital flight accelerates, wage arrears increases and the general state of the economy resembles a death spiral. It is indeed oil and gas money that has kept Russia from enacting desperately need reforms. Whenever oil goes into a bear market they start making noises about reforms. Then a bull market returns and all talk of reforms ends. Russia, in fact, is a classic case study in a resource curse hobbled country.

    Putin clings to power and will likely die in office because of all the hundreds of billions of dollars generated by oil and gas he and his cronies have stolen. He is afraid that a future regime will one day prosecute him. He is also afraid that if he isn’t clothed in the power of the Russian presidency, the US Treasury and banking authorities around the world will seize his assets. A new Russia administration might in fact make that request of banks in Switzerland, Panama and elsewhere. There’s plenty of precedent for incoming authorities to try to recover ill-gotten wealth in this way.

    And Russians are capable of making things and doing things that Africans won’t be doing even after a century of borrowing other people’s technology, if even then.

    Russia makes things that Greeks, Spaniards and Norwegians don’t make. Like Africans, it’s not because they are incapable innately, dummy.

    No it does not. It says that large holdings of resources inhibit economic growth. Period.

    No. That’s not what resource curse is. We’ve already established that that USA has large holdings of resources, as does Canada. Even the UK and Norway are major oil and gas producers via the North Sea deposits. But none of these countries suffers from a resource curse for the reasons I’ve already enumerated — private production and marketing being a key element, a diversified economy being another key element.

    North Dakota today has the fifth highest GDP per capita among US states in the nation – much higher than that mixed economy called California. And with a much lower cost of living. So much for that resource curse.

    You ought not try to dispute incontrovertible facts. You also appear to be completely mystified by how the American economy works; indeed, by how capitalism works.

    The fact that North Dakota suffers from a resource curse (admitted to repeatedly by its own government) is not controversial or up for debate:

    “Economic diversification is a top priority for North Dakota,” said Gov. Doug Burgum.

    https://bnd.nd.gov/bank-of-north-dakota-enhances-loan-programs-to-support-economic-diversification/

    Why does the ND governor say this? Because of this:

    A North Dakota Oil Boom Goes Bust

    What will happen to those who built their lives on it?

    In a field of brittle yellow grass and clotted mud about five miles north of Dickinson, North Dakota, stands a cemetery of sorts. Drilling rigs stretch into the sky like tall skeletons. The occasional lone truck rattles along a dirt road. Otherwise, the location is deserted.

    Similar graveyards have been popping up across the western half of the state since the price of oil sharply declined last fall. These once-great moneymakers that drew thousands to the state are now idle, or “stacked,” in the lingo of the oil fields. As more and more companies have stopped drilling following the decline in the price of oil last year, the term has become all too familiar.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/06/north-dakota-oil-boom-bust/396620/

    What you don’t understand is that North Dakota’s high GDP per capita doesn’t mitigate the rot in its one trick pony economy. Yes, the oil industry pays well. But fewer and fewer people are drawing those salaries. The oil companies respond to a downturn by drastically cutting corners, dramatically cutting workers and automating. This is how American oil companies who are tapping unconventional deposits compete with producers in the Middle East and elsewhere who have much more accessible deposits and are using underpaid and underprotected workers to bring that oil to the surface. So an American worker making six figures is doing the work of three people, two others also making six figures who were there when oil was $100 having been let go. He won’t complain because he’s just happy to have a job.

    • LOL: mikemikev
    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  273. Okechukwu says:
    @annamaria

    It is amazing how many Okechukwas do not want to live among their tribal geniuses in Africa but head instead for western countries, to live among white people.

    I’ll go live in Africa if you take your sorry ass back to Poland or Bulgaria or whatever dysfunctional Eastern or Central European shithole you fled from. Deal?

    I can tell from your prose and phrasing that you’re a foreigner. No native born American writes Affirmative Action as affirmative actions, which is just a small sampling of your tortured syntax and malapropisms.

    Even if you were born in the United States, you still would not be an indigenous (i.e., aboriginal) American, now would you? So shut your stinking mouth about who does or doesn’t belong here.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  274. @Okechukwu

    So what? As stated, there’s no economic competition from a lot of places and regions, including Eastern, Central Southern Europe. I want to know what point you are trying to make here.

    What makes you think there is no economic competition at any level from Eastern and Southern Europe? Every one of those countries, from Poland to Estonia to Romania, is more competitive and more productive than any country in sub-Saharan Africa.

    Poland’s top three exports are machinery, vehicles, and electrical machinery.

    Hungary’s top seven exports are electrical machinery, computer-related machinery, vehicles, pharmaceuticals, mineral fuels, plastics, and medical apparatuses.

    Even a country like Bulgaria has among its top exports electrical machinery, computer machinery, and vehicles.

    Central and Eastern Europe are now the factories for Western Europe, just as China is the factory for East Asia. Germany’s major automakers, for example, have been using Eastern Europe for more than two decades to build new factories for export.

    Wake me up when sub-Saharan Africa is a factory for anywhere else in the world.

    South Africa, which is easily the most sophisticated economy in SSA due to its dwindling white population and history, still lists gems and ores as its top two exports. Nevertheless, South Africa does at least have vehicle parts and computer machinery among its top ten exports. However, Nigeria, which is easily the largest economy in SSA, would hardly export anything were it not for oil. Various fuels are more than 95 percent of Nigeria’s exports.

    So, yes, Eastern and Southern Europe are globally competitive in ways that SSA dreams it could be.

    I notice you can’t name this “something” these other places have that Africa lacks.

    Top-of-the-line automative factories, high-end brand name consumer goods, weapons manufacturers that still sell for export, etc.

    Italy, for example, is not going to win any space races or wars in the near future, but its brand name fashion goods are as competitive as any country’s in the world, including France’s. It also sells pretty good high-end automobiles that compete with any luxury sports cars in the world.

    Tell me, Okefenokee, where can they do that in sub-Saharan Africa? And this is just Italy, which in many ways is the joke of Europe.

    California has double the GDP of Russia. As a matter of fact, California just barely under-performs all of Eastern Europe in GDP.

    California has more than one-quarter of Russia’s population. The Golden State only has one-twenty-fifth of sub-Saharan Africa’s population.

    And sub-Saharan Africa has an even more dramatic advantage in young workers than either California or Russia. Still doesn’t help.

    That must be why they’re looking for Einsteins in Africa…

    They’re not finding any. But keep looking, Okefenokee. As the joke goes, with all that horseshit in the room, there’s got to be a pony in there somewhere.

    …and tech hubs are sprouting up everywhere there…

    Internet cafes are not tech hubs.

    The same reason Res and most other white nationalists won’t own up to it. Since white nationalism is really just Nazism by another name, and since you want to promote the fictional narrative that you are an impartial observer, and since you envision yourself as some sort of keyboard philosopher working assiduously to win hearts and minds, you know that to be diagnosed as a white nationalist would diminish your viability and impede your proselytization.

    Take a look around you. There’s no need for white nationalists to secretly proselytize at this website, any more than there’s a need for Catholics to go to the Rome to secretly proselytize there.

    Now if this was a normal conservative website, like the National Review or something, then maybe your point would have some coherence. But it’s not and so it doesn’t.

    In any case if it makes you happy to think of me as a white nationalist, then go ahead and do so. I certainly don’t care.

    You have no idea [about Russia’s lack of social capital].

    Russia’s lack of social capital is well-known. I didn’t make it up, as you make up half your points. Do a search for it and a hundred papers will come up, usually in reference to democratization but also for its impact on economic dimensions. And unlike the resource curse, the lack of social capital matters.

    And the lack of social capital also better describes other economically-retarded economies in Eastern Europe that don’t have resources. Ukraine, for example, doesn’t have mineral resources, but it struggles economically even more so than does Russia. So your resource curse can’t explain both Ukraine and Russia, but my theory about the lack of social capital can explain them both.

    We’ve already established that that USA has large holdings of resources, as does Canada. Even the UK and Norway are major oil and gas producers via the North Sea deposits. But none of these countries suffers from a resource curse for the reasons I’ve already enumerated — private production and marketing being a key element, a diversified economy being another key element.

    Doesn’t explain Australia, another resource-laden country which also does not suffer the resource curse.

    Your explanation also doesn’t explain Norway. Equinor is technically a private company, but it was founded by the Norway government, and two-third of its stock is owned by the government of Norway and they are managed by the Norway Ministry of Petroleum.

    So the top oil company in Norway was founded, and is owned and managed by the government – and it provides a great deal of wealth to Norway as oil is more than 60 percent of Norway’s exports. Yet somehow “private marketing” explains why it doesn’t suffer from the resource curse?

    You’re just making this shit up as you go.

    You ought not try to dispute incontrovertible facts. You also appear to be completely mystified by how the American economy works; indeed, by how capitalism works.

    The fact that North Dakota suffers from a resource curse (admitted to repeatedly by its own government) is not controversial or up for debate:

    It is controversial and it is up for debate. And quoting a North Dakota politician who is in favor of a more diversified economy in North Dakota doesn’t gainsay it.

    There are a lot of anti-oil stories in the mass media who try to scare people into believing that something which is obviously good for them isn’t obviously good for them.

    I already mentioned that North Dakota was 5th among all U.S. states in 2018 in per capita income.

    It was 2nd in 2017.

    It was 1st in 2016.

    It was 2nd in 2015.

    It was 2nd in 2014.

    It was 7th in 2013.

    It was 10th in 2012.

    It was 15th in 2011.

    So over the last decade, North Dakota has sometimes led the nation in per capita income, but it have never been below 15th. So much for that “resource curse” and the boom/bust nature of oil leading to catastrophic economic results for the state.

    And from Wikipedia: “Since 1976, the highest that North Dakota’s unemployment rate has reached is just 6.2%, recorded in 1983. Every U.S. state except neighboring South Dakota has had a higher unemployment rate during that period.”

    Quick, Okefenokee! Help save North Dakotans from that terrible resource curse before it turns the state into sub-Saharan Africa!

    What you don’t understand is that North Dakota’s high GDP per capita doesn’t mitigate the rot in its one trick pony economy. Yes, the oil industry pays well. But fewer and fewer people are drawing those salaries. The oil companies respond to a downturn by drastically cutting corners, dramatically cutting workers and automating.

    Lots of laughs! By just about every measure North Dakota outperforms the rest of the country in job creation. Job growth is the highest in the country over the last decade. Income growth is also at the top. Unemployment remains incredibly low despite many workers migrating to the state looking for work. The government has been running budget surpluses every year since 2008.

    If this is the resource curse, sub-Saharan Africans definitely want to sign up to become cursed.

    • Troll: Okechukwu
  275. @Okechukwu

    I’ll go live in Africa if you take your sorry ass back to Poland or Bulgaria or whatever dysfunctional Eastern or Central European shithole you fled from. Deal?

    No deal. Anna Maria adds value to this country. You do not.

    Plus, she is not on this site grossly overhyping Poland and Bulgaria in the same way you do sub-Saharan Africa, so she is under no obligation to switch teams.

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  276. Economic stats for Okefenokee’s reflection:

    California – 39 million Californians produced $3 trillion worth of goods and services in 2018, which is more than the UK, France or India, and nearly twice as much as Russia or South Korea.

    Texas – 28 million Texans produced $1.8 trillion worth of goods and services in 2018, which is more than 37 million Canadians or 144 million Russians produced, and it is twice as much as 82 million Turks produced.

    North Dakota – 760 thousand North Dakotans, with their resource curse, produced $55.6 billion goods and services in 2018. That compares favorably to what 28 million Ghanians or 91 million Congolese in the DRC produced.

    Sub-Saharan Africa – Over 1 billion sub-Saharan Africans, within the region’s 46 countries, produced $1.7 trillion in goods and services. That’s the equivalent of what New York state, with its population of 19 million, produced the same year.

    Nigeria – the biggest economy in sub-Saharan Africa produced nearly $400 billion in goods and services in 2018. That’s less than fifteen different U.S. states produced that same year. The good news is that Nigeria, with its population of 200 million, should soon pass up Maryland, with its population of 6 million, the U.S. state which is number 15 on the list. I’m sure Okefenokee will say that’s because of Nigeria’s tech hubs.

    South Africa – the second biggest economy in sub-Saharan Africa. And the most mixed. 58 million South Africans produced nearly – but not quite – as much as Colorado’s 5.7 million people. Keep in mind that there are still a few million whites left in this country and they are the productive part of the economy.

    Angola – this country ought to be a quiz game question: “What is sub-Saharan Africa’s third largest economy?” 28 million Angolans produced $114 billion worth of goods and services in 2018, which is about $10 billion less than what Nebraska’s 1.9 people produced.

    • Replies: @Okechukwu
  277. Okechukwu says:
    @Pincher Martin

    Let’s examine how dumb Pincher Martin is:

    The U.S. has its own ‘oil curse’

    The term “oil curse” — coined to describe petro-rich developing countries where the “black gold” came with the heavy price of economic and political instability — is now being adapted for use in the U.S., where “petrostates” and cities are seeing shrinking tax revenues, budget deficits, negative credit ratings, rising unemployment and even outright recession as oil prices have fallen.

    Alaska, North Dakota, Wyoming, New Mexico, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas, which enjoyed the feast of the shale revolution, are now threatened with famine. How they weather the storm, analysts now say, could largely determine their fiscal and economic fortunes for the next decade.

    https://www.marketwatch.com/story/here-in-the-us-weve-got-our-own-oil-curse-2016-10-18

    Pincher Martin is trying to argue against established, incontrovertible facts. Facts that any moron can confirm inside of 10 seconds with a simple Google search.

    The idiot Pincher Martin thinks that if North Dakota has low unemployment and a high GDP per capita, that must mean that they aren’t afflicted by a resource curse, despite the ND state government and business community conceding that they are indeed a resource curse state. Despite the tens of thousands of lives destroyed there in the inevitable boom/bust cycles.

    North Dakota has low unemployment because nobody wants to live there. You can literally drive for hours there without seeing another human being. It is a hellish place that is under snow and ice 11 months out of the year. And with the collapse of oil down to $27 in 2015, tens of thousands of people fled the state. If those people had remained, North Dakota would have one of the highest unemployment rates in the country.

    In North Dakota’s oil patch, a humbling comedown

    North Dakota’s economy shrank 3.4 percent in the third quarter of last year, the weakest performer in the nation. Worse numbers for the end of 2015 and beginning of 2016 are expected in a federal report to be released in June.

    All facets of the oil boom – including the people, like Van Assche, who supported it – are now in retreat. It’s a stunning reversal of fortune for a state whose governor, Jack Dalrymple, vowed in 2014 that he would not blink in the fight with OPEC for global oil market share.

    More than 80,000 people poured into North Dakota, looking to stake their future on the fracking economy. The state’s Bakken oil patch, centered here in Williston, was a magnet for oil workers, business investors and job-hungry folks.

    That future has evaporated. Those who haven’t packed up and left the Bakken are facing a new reality of smaller budgets, fewer residents and the physical detritus of a building boom that left behind hundreds of empty apartments.

    https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-northdakota-bust/

    And then this jackass Pincher Martin said this:

    760 thousand North Dakotans, with their resource curse, produced $55.6 billion goods and services in 2018. That compares favorably to what 28 million Ghanians or 91 million Congolese in the DRC produced.

    He neglected to say (or perhaps is too stupid to realize) that this state of 760,000 people produces more oil per day than Nigeria. In fact as a nation North Dakota would be one of the world’s top oil producers. But the oil produced in North Dakota isn’t used there because hardly anyone lives there. Most of the oil is transported up to Canada or down to the Gulf. In fact shale oil from North Dakota is heavily discounted despite its very high quality as compensation to buyers for the cost of transporting the oil out of there.

    This clown Pincher Martin is trying to talk economics, business, oil and commodities when he is hopelessly out of his depth. I’m beginning to think that he’s even dumber than Res.

  278. Okechukwu says:
    @Pincher Martin

    No deal. Anna Maria adds value to this country. You do not.

    Well, basement-dwelling white nationalist trolls don’t make the determination. In the real world, if Annamaria were to expound on her views to a customs officer her entry visa would be terminated and she would be put on a plane back to her beloved goat-herding village.

  279. res says:
    @Okechukwu

    Just can’t avoid talking about me. Even though you are unable to respond effectively to my points. I think of that as me doing a victory dance rent free in your head.

    It is interesting to observe your shifting definition of the resource curse. There are really multiple effects involved.

    Wikipedia has a good list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse

    Let’s run through some of them.

    1. The lottery winner analogy. This one is most dependent on the people involved and their ability to plan and use the windfall effectively. I think it is obvious how much countries vary in this (compare Norway, the Middle East, Venezuela, and Nigeria). Success or failure here is clearly on the people and governments involved.

    2. Dutch disease describes the effect heavy export of valuable resources has on the country’s currency (increases its buying power). This means other exports become harder to produce competitively. This is one area where North Dakota has an advantage over Nigeria in that ND’s oil exports are mostly used in the domestic (US) economy and in any case represent a smaller fraction of US exports than oil does in Nigeria. The Wikipedia section on that has a description of how this can be made worse (search for inefficient, corrupt, or disastrous) by the country involved.

    3. Revenue volatility is a major problem for oil producers. As far as I see this has been the focus of your North Dakota discussion. It affects all oil producers, but again the way the country (or state) involved handles this can make a difference. Notice that both Nigeria and Venezuala are given as negative historical examples of how to manage this.

    4. Wikipedia mentions both “enclave effects” and “human resources” but those seem largely the same to me. In short, the resource economy starves the rest of the economy of both investment and the best employees.

    5. Wikipedia mentions “incomes and employment” which I take to be the observation that resource extraction tends to have a relatively low proportion of worker input (resulting in income) relative to economic output from the resource. Compare to manufacturing or service economies. Then consider that the resource economy is probably starving those for all of the reasons above. Plus, this income is volatile as described in 3.

    6. The last is not so much a curse but an important observation. In full: “A 2019 study found that active mining activity had an adverse impact on the growth of firms in tradeable sectors but a positive impact on the growth of firms in non-tradeable sectors.” I think this falls under Dutch Disease, but is worth making explicit.

    Then there are the effects included in the Wikipedia Effects section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse#Effects

    Too much there to go into detail, but the two major subsection headings serve as a decent summary: “violence and conflict” and “democracy and human rights.”
    I think these aspects dominate the purely economic aspects discussed above in terms of negative effects.

    With all of your expertise in economics, business, oil and commodities (along with all of the descriptive material above) how about you explain to me why two areas you claim are subject to the resource curse (Nigeria and North Dakota) are so different in outcomes? Despite the variability, North Dakota has been doing quite well for an extended period as Pincher Martin detailed. Even a post-bust North Dakota compares favorably to Nigeria. Just why is Nigeria so badly affected by the resource curse?

    The big question in my mind is how well North Dakota does in husbanding its windfall for the future. I don’t have the sense they are doing a good job here. I think Norway is the best example of a country doing that effectively. I think it is fair to say Nigeria has squandered most of its windfall and is busy increasing its population to better use it all up.

    TLDR: The resource curse exists, but the degree to which it manifests negatively is largely up to the country (or state) involved.

    • Troll: Okechukwu
    • Replies: @Okechukwu
    , @res
  280. @Okechukwu

    Swamp Okefenokee is hilarious. He has now turned the resource curse into a metastasizing cancer which is invading not only North Dakota, but Texas, Wyoming, Alaska and other seemingly wealthy American states. Soon all the U.S. will be laboring under the same awful conditions as sub-Saharan Africa.

    But is there a resource curse? Is there a well-accepted idea in economics that resources inhibit economic growth?

    Let’s turn to the most widely-used economic textbook, Gregory Mankiw’s Principles of Economics, 7th Edition, to see what it has to say about resource curses.

    What? There is no “resource curse” in the index? How could that be? One would think such an important determinant of economic success would at least have an entry in the book.

    Nope. Okay, let’s take a closer look at the various “resources” to see if Mankiw is hiding it under some other name. Again, the answer seems to be no.

    Ah well, maybe he forgot. Let’s do a Google search for “Mankiw” and “resource curse” and see what comes up.

    Well, this first one’s not good for Okefenokee: In Search of the Missing Resource Curse. Doesn’t have Mankiw’s name in the brief selection, but it is written by two World Bank economists who also seem to wonder what in God’s name is a resource curse and why do otherwise seemingly intelligent people keep talking about it. Here is the full World Bank paper: Natural Resources: Neither Curse Nor Destiny

    The second Google link ultimately leads to this article: Debunking the Curse of Oil

    In the 1990s and early 2000s, a series of economics publications made the claim that an abundance of point-source resources, such as oil, gas, gold and diamonds, was associated with weak economic performance. The idea came to be widely accepted, and the term “natural resource curse” was coined to describe it. Further research focused on the reason for the curse, and the most convincing answer seemed to be that, for a variety of reasons, nations with an abundance of point-source resources tended to have worse-than-average governments and other institutions.

    But Alexeev and Conrad found no correlation between natural resource endowments and the quality of institutions if the calculations are done correctly. Previous analyses that found such a link, they say, were skewed by using per-capita gross domestic product (GDP) as a controlling variable. That approach resulted in comparing countries with high GDP and strong institutions with those that have high GDP purely because of resource wealth: comparing Portugal with Kuwait, for example.

    “In essence,” Alexeev said, “the logic of the earlier work was as follows: Most countries with high GDP have good institutions. Natural resource-rich countries, however, have high GDP but poor institutions. Therefore, natural resources must lead to poor institutions.”

    Not looking good for you, Okefenokee.

    Ah, finally, in our fourth Google link, there is something that doesn’t totally smash Okefenokee’s argument to smithereens.

    The Natural Resource Curse in Post-Soviet Countries : The Role of Institutions and Trade Policies

    From the abstract:

    We examine the effect of natural resource abundance on economic performance during the 1996–2011 period in the 15 independent countries that formerly comprised the Soviet Union. These countries were a largely homogeneous group with respect to institutional development, liberalization and economic performance; however, these countries began to demonstrate marked differences from one another with respect to these factors during the transition, which has resulted in unique cross-section and time variation. Using several panel regression models that address the endogeneity issues, our results suggest that natural resources crowd out manufacturing sector unless the quality of domestic institutions is sufficiently high. Conversely, trade policies do not help convert the natural resource curse into a blessing.

    While the overall paper (which I have not read and is written by two economists I’ve never heard of) seems to agree with Okefenokee, the part I’ve highlighted in bold strengthens my argument that the lack of social capital is critically important in parts of Eastern Europe, since social capital is the mortar in making domestic institutions work.

    *****

    Of course there are economists who think they see a “resource curse” in their research. You can find their writings all over the web. But like a lot of economic research, their findings have not been substantiated to the point that the Don of Economic Textbooks, Gregory Mankiw, has put it in his hallowed text.

    Really, the only part of Wikipedia’s entry on resource curse you need to read is this:

    The IMF classifies 51 countries as “resource-rich.” These are countries which derive at least 20% of exports or 20% of fiscal revenue from nonrenewable natural resources. 29 of these countries are low- and lower-middle-income. Common characteristics of these 29 countries include (i) extreme dependence on resource wealth for fiscal revenues, export sales, or both; (ii) low saving rates; (iii) poor growth performance; and (iv) highly volatile resource revenues.[1]

    A 2016 meta-study finds weak support for the thesis that resource richness adversely affects long-term economic growth.[14] The authors note that “approximately 40% of empirical papers finding a negative effect, 40% finding no effect, and 20% finding a positive effect” but “overall support for the resource curse hypothesis is weak when potential publication bias and method heterogeneity are taken into account.”[14] A 2011 study in the journal Comparative Political Studies found that “natural resource wealth can be either a “curse” or a “blessing” and that the distinction is conditioned by domestic and international factors, both amenable to change through public policy, namely, human capital formation and economic openness.”[15]

    So in other words smart people who find a resource are going to treat it much differently than dumb people who find it. In economic-speak, this means that “domestic” factors, like “human capital formation” are critical.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
    , @Okechukwu
  281. @Okechukwu

    Miscellaneous desiderata…

    I have to admit that this passage Okefenokee lovingly quotes form Market Watch brought me to tears.

    Alaska, North Dakota, Wyoming, New Mexico, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas, which enjoyed the feast of the shale revolution, are now threatened with famine.

    Written in October of 2016.

    It is now November of 2019 and the “famine” this Market Watch author predicted has actually come true! North Dakota has fallen from 1st in per capita income among the U.S. states to 6th. How the mighty have fallen!

    Back to Okefenokee:

    [Pincher] neglected to say (or perhaps is too stupid to realize) that this state of 760,000 people produces more oil per day than Nigeria.

    I’m not sure that’s true. The stats I see online show Nigeria’s oil production at 2.53 million barrels per day and North Dakota at 1.42 million barrels per day.

    But in any case, if the people switched places, the North Dakotans would be far more productive and efficient in getting Nigeria’s oil out of the ground and little of the Bakken formation would be gotten at by the Nigerians, since it would involve more technology to get at the oil than they use in Nigeria.

  282. @Pincher Martin

    Let’s turn to the most widely-used economic textbook, Gregory Mankiw’s Principles of Economics, 7th Edition, to see what it has to say about resource curses.

    What? There is no “resource curse” in the index?

    It’s not just Mankiw.

    I just looked into Krugman, et al, International Economics textbook and there is no entry in the index for “resource curse.”

    I did look into a Development Economics text called Development Economics: Theory and Practice and finally came across an entry for “resource curse.” Here is what this text says about “resource curse” in its most substantive selection:

    Finally, there is the interesting question of the role of natural-resource wealth (the “resource curse”) on political outcomes. Does natural-resource wealth undermine democracy? In general, the empirical literature observes a positive correlation between resource wealth and good outcomes (growth, non-violence) in democracies such as Norway and the US, and negative correlation in non-democracies such as the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Sudan (Arezki and Brückner, 2012). But does natural-resource wealth affect political outcomes? Causality is difficult to establish because resources are geographically fixed and thus spuriously correlated with many other local characteristics that affect outcomes. Analyzing the election of mayors in Brazil, Brollo et al. (2013) use federal transfers to municipal governments to study the effect of local-government revenues (in this case unrelated to local natural-resource extraction) on political outcomes. Transfers change at given population thresholds, allowing them to use a regression discontinuity design. They find a “political resource curse”: larger transfers increase corruption and lower the education of candidates for mayor. Asher and Novosad (2014) use exogenous variations in international mineral-resource prices to measure changes in natural-resource wealth across time and states in India. They analyze how this affects the outcomes of state legislative-assembly elections. They find that an increase in natural-resource wealth raises the electoral success of criminal politicians, thus increasing their presence in office. This happens in particular by giving corrupt incumbent candidates a political advantage. The resource curse thus makes elections less competitive and undermines institutional quality.

    de Janvry, Alain. Development Economics (p. 758). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.

    That’s a pretty big ho-hum. But it would appear to mean that if you’ve got your shit together as a country than resources aren’t a curse at all.

    The text also has this to say in the intro:

    Exporting natural resources can be an effective early source of growth according to the “vent for surplus” theory of Adam Smith. Some forms of natural-resource abundance, especially oil and mineral resources, can however create a “resource curse” (or “paradox of plenty”) that is detrimental to industrialization, sustainable growth, good governance, and social stability. When does resource abundance stop being an asset for growth and become instead an obstacle to growth? It can be due to real-exchange-rate appreciation diminishing the competitiveness of domestic agriculture and industry (see Chapter 10), volatile revenues associated with international market price fluctuations, government mismanagement of the resource, and conflict and corruption as resource rents are often easily appropriated (Collier, 2004). The curse can of course be managed, as shown by countries like Norway that combine abundant petroleum resources with sustained growth, egalitarianism, and democracy.

    de Janvry, Alain. Development Economics (p. 5). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.

    So basically this development economics text says that a resource abundance is only a curse if you’re dumb.

  283. I’ll repeat what I said before: There is no resource curse. The concept is poorly defined and understood; there is no consensus on it among economists; it is not even presented in most economic textbooks.

    Sometimes the concept of resource curse means a short-term problem related to either the boom/bust cycle inherent to many natural resources or the terms of trade created by its export. Sometimes it refers to long-term problems related to abundant resources either creating poor governance and corruption or prematurely smothering other sectors of economic growth (e.g., manufacturing).

    That there is so little agreement on what the concept even means, and what type of problems (if any) it causes, ought to give pause to anyone trying to use it, and that Okefenokee employs it for places as disparate as Nigeria, North Dakota, Norway and Russia ought to greatly increase everyone’s trepidation as to its usefulness.

  284. mikemikev says:

    ought to greatly increase everyone’s trepidation as to its usefulness.

    Okechukwu? He’s kind of useful as a comic relief.

    • Agree: Pincher Martin
    • Troll: Okechukwu
  285. Okechukwu says:
    @Pincher Martin

    Swamp Okefenokee is hilarious. He has now turned the resource curse into a metastasizing cancer which is invading not only North Dakota, but Texas, Wyoming, Alaska and other seemingly wealthy American states. Soon all the U.S. will be laboring under the same awful conditions as sub-Saharan Africa.

    I think I’ve demonstrated amply that the United States does suffer localized resource curses, your ignorant bloviating notwithstanding. I challenge anyone here who isn’t Res and who cares about his/her reputation to take your side in this argument over mine.

    California is the third largest oil producer in the United States. But you will never see CA on any list of resource curse states because it has a big, dynamic and diversified economy of which the oil industry is a minor element.

    But is there a resource curse? Is there a well-accepted idea in economics that resources inhibit economic growth?

    Yes. Resources do inhibit economic growth, hence resource curse. Resources make countries (and certain US states) lazy and torpid. It saps vitality and discourages innovation. It promotes graft and corruption. If Japan was sitting on a sea of oil it wouldn’t be the country it is today.

    In many ways the resource curse states in the United States mirror their counterparts in the developing word, even in terms of the corruption that is a by-product of the curse:

    How oil, corruption and a murder for hire link led to one North Dakotan tribal chief’s spectacular downfall

    After six years of rapid oil development on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation, anxiety about the costs of a boom, as well as about oil-related corruption and tribal mismanagement, burst to the surface.

    https://business.financialpost.com/commodities/energy/how-oil-corruption-and-murder-for-hire-link-led-to-one-north-dakotan-tribal-chiefs-spectacular-downfall

    And don’t think that the corruption is limited to Indians. The white man is a major enabler, participant and corruption profiteer.

    Oh, here’s another small dose of Pincher Martin stupidity:

    So the top oil company in Norway was founded, and is owned and managed by the government – and it provides a great deal of wealth to Norway as oil is more than 60 percent of Norway’s exports. Yet somehow “private marketing” explains why it doesn’t suffer from the resource curse?

    Equinor, which was formerly called Statoil, is simply a major integrated oil company like Shell and ExxonMobil. It does not (AND I REPEAT) it does not in any way shape or form operate as an NOC (national oil company).

    Here’s a blurb from Wiki:

    Equinor ASA (OSE: EQNR, formerly Statoil and StatoilHydro) is a Norwegian multinational energy company headquartered in Stavanger, Norway. It is primarily a petroleum company, operating in 36 countries with some investments in renewable energy. By revenue, while under Statoil name, Equinor was ranked by Forbes Magazine (2013) as the world’s eleventh largest oil and gas company and the twenty-sixth largest company, regardless of industry, by profit in the world.[4] The company has about 20,200 employees.

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

    NOC’s like SOMO in Iraq, PEMEX in Mexico, NNPC in Nigeria, ARAMCO in Saudi Arabia, etc. do not function this way. They focus instead on producing and marketing their own oil. Moreover, a company has to jump through a series of hoops to deal with NOC’s. For example, the company must have substantial refining capacity. That eliminate multi-billion dollar traders like Trifigura, Vitol, Gunvor and Glencore. The NOC’s will even tell a company in which part of the world they can take the oil, because they have different pricing for different regions. And NOC’s may even require that the company be multi-national, publicly traded and be listed on stock indexes. Well, companies like Equinor don’t care about any of that. If a company has the money to buy, they will sell to them.

    Please desist from further making a fool of yourself by trying to discuss things that are well above your head and well above your meager intelligence level.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  286. Okechukwu says:
    @res

    So you think North Dakota and Nigeria are peer competitors, huh?

    Man, Res you are really dumb.

    • Replies: @res
  287. res says:
    @res

    Remember everyone, in Okechukwu-speak Troll flagging a comment means “I have no effective response, but I have to respond somehow.” (in addition to the obvious Okechukwu Projection Principle implication)

    • Replies: @Eternally Antifascist
  288. @Okechukwu

    I think I’ve demonstrated amply that the United States does suffer localized resource curses, your ignorant bloviating notwithstanding.

    The only thing you’ve demonstrated, Okefenokee, is that some ignorant people are incurable.

    California is the third largest oil producer in the United States. But you will never see CA on any list of resource curse states because it has a big, dynamic and diversified economy of which the oil industry is a minor element.

    And yet California’s per capita income has not once reached North Dakota’s in any year since 2012. See for yourself.

    California’s poverty rate is also significantly higher than North Dakota’s. See for yourself (both in 2014 and 2017).

    At no time in the last ten years has North Dakota ever had a higher unemployment rate than California. See for yourself. And it’s really not even close.

    Less unemployment; less poverty; more income. So much for that resource curse. Or explaining it by saying that North Dakotans are “lazy and torpid.” You know, because of oil.

    I challenge anyone here who isn’t Res and who cares about his/her reputation to take your side in this argument over mine.

    If you read more carefully, you’d see that Res doesn’t fully agree with me on this topic. He thinks there’s a resource curse; I don’t.

    But intelligent people can respectfully disagree on such a topic. There’s room for discussion once details and definitions are agreed upon. But you’re not even in the room for serious discussion because you’re flailing all over the place with links to other illiterate half-wits and irrelevant new items.

    If Japan was sitting on a sea of oil it wouldn’t be the country it is today.

    That’s true. They’d be wealthier. They also would’ve been harder to beat in WW2.

    And don’t think that the corruption is limited to Indians. The white man is a major enabler, participant and corruption profiteer.

    Thank God there’s no corruption like that here in California.

    quinor, which was formerly called Statoil, is simply a major integrated oil company like Shell and ExxonMobil. It does not (AND I REPEAT) it does not in any way shape or form operate as an NOC (national oil company).

    Shell and Exxon were not founded by the state; they were not managed by the state; and today they are not 60 percent owned by the state.

  289. res says:
    @Okechukwu

    So you think North Dakota and Nigeria are peer competitors, huh?

    You were the one who brought up North Dakota as an example of the resource curse (comment 269, first mention of ND in this thread). One paragraph earlier you mentioned Nigeria as another example.

    Here is the relevant part of my comment. Read the highlighted part which clarifies the common point of those two.

    With all of your expertise in economics, business, oil and commodities (along with all of the descriptive material above) how about you explain to me why two areas you claim are subject to the resource curse (Nigeria and North Dakota) are so different in outcomes? Despite the variability, North Dakota has been doing quite well for an extended period as Pincher Martin detailed. Even a post-bust North Dakota compares favorably to Nigeria. Just why is Nigeria so badly affected by the resource curse?

    So in fact I was questioning your assertion of them as comparable examples of the resource curse. And asking if that was the case then why YOU thought there was such a big difference in outcomes (my comment outlined some possible reasons I think there is a difference). Them not being peers in some important ways is part of the answer, but perhaps you could elaborate on which differences YOU think are most important?

    P.S. Calling someone dumb is not an argument. It is just you demonstrating what dumb really is. One of the few things you seem to do well.

  290. @res

    You seem to suffer from a surplus of patience to bother to respond to all of the inanities that that blithering idiot Okechukwu is able to scribble!

    Why bother though?

    The inferiority complex in him could fill all of the universes in existence or to be created in the future.
    Such is a fairly common phenomenon from American Kneegrowes who have managed to finish eighth-grade English! Poorly constructed thoughts are the weapons such use, compared to what their ghetto bro’s use by comparison! But these poorly constructed thoughts are abysmal because the author(s) of such are incapable of comprehending the logic needed to construct and convey the thought. Therefore, such thoughts are mostly incomprehensible to most (i.e. White) Americans.

  291. res says:

    OT: Dante Labs has a Black Friday special of $189 for 30x coverage whole genome sequencing. This includes raw data free of charge (FASTQ, BAM and VCF).
    https://us.dantelabs.com/
    Turnaround time is given as 8 weeks (2 weeks for $599), but in the past they have had some issues with slow delivery. Other than that the reviews are good, but caveat emptor.
    https://dnatestingchoice.com/en-us/dna-sequencing/provider/dante-labs/4479

    Here is more detail on the files. It seems VCF files are provided for SNP. INDEL, SV, and CNV.
    https://us.dantelabs.com/blogs/news/genetic-data-fastq-bam-and-vcf

    An extended discussion of the VCF SNP file and what can be done with it: http://www.beholdgenealogy.com/blog/?p=2879

    For some analyses it is easier to convert to 23andMe format. I believe the best way to do this is using Plink:
    https://www.biostars.org/p/274804/
    https://www.cog-genomics.org/plink/1.9/data#recode

    There are a variety of analyses available. Some free/cheap, some not.

    Here is information about Promethease ($5, now $12?, but free until end of 2019?):
    https://www.xcode.life/23andme-raw-data/promethease-xcode-life-23andme-raw-data-analysis-health-reports/
    https://promethease.com/
    I think using a VCF file would be best for full detail, but my understanding is the Dante Labs VCF only contains differences from the reference which is not optimal for Promethease. Maybe use Plink to convert to a VCF with everything?
    https://www.snpedia.com/index.php/VCF

    Impute.me is free, but a donation is requested and $5 lets you jump the waiting queue:
    https://www.impute.me/www/terms_of_use.html
    MANY PGS results are available, but they tend to be buried in the menu structure. Height is under Physical Appearance, as is hair colour (but neither skin nor eye colour?).
    There is an intelligence page at https://www.impute.me/intelligence/ but it is not clear to me which studies they use. I do not see any EDU years PGS?

    I am also hoping to do HLA analysis with HLA-VBSeq, but that does not look nearly as user friendly as the above:
    http://nagasakilab.csml.org/hla/

    Does anyone else have analysis sites they would recommend? Any interest in talking about how to do all of this in more detail in a couple of months?

    P.S. For reference, here is some information about past versions of the 23andme chips [v1 (2008), v3 (2011), v4 (2014) and v5 (2017)].
    https://isogg.org/wiki/23andMe#Chip_versions
    Note this:

    Tests done using the version 3 and version 4 chips can be transferred free of charge to the Family Tree DNA Family Finder database. For details see the FTDNA page on the autosomal DNA transfer program.

    • Replies: @mikemikev
  292. mikemikev says:
    @res

    Here’s one for skin and eye color referenced in a recent Psych paper.
    https://hirisplex.erasmusmc.nl/
    https://www.mdpi.com/2624-8611/1/1/34

    Kirkegaard had the idea of generating racial appearance estimates from genomic data, using stuff like this.
    https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms11616
    https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0048294

    One could then see whether outcomes correlate better to racial ancestry or racial appearance to test a discrimination factor, since sometimes mixed people randomly look more like one or the other, and mixed outcomes are kind of halfway, suggesting “half-strength” discrimination if that’s the main cause.

    https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?p=5974

    Is that the kind of thing you were thinking of doing?

    • Replies: @res
  293. res says:
    @mikemikev

    Thanks! Your first link is close to what I had in mind, except I was hoping to be able to read a SNP file rather than hand entering them. But 41/24/6 SNPs is not that many to do by hand. It looks like you can load CSVs, but they are not in a standard format AFAICT and it is probably quicker just to create those files once by hand rather than writing a translator (say from 23andMe).

    The basic idea is seeing how well predictions match reality for myself.

    I am also interested in doing a PCA. Are there any sites out there which will display that for an uploaded file? If not it might be easiest to just add my data to the 1000 Genomes data and do a PCA on that.

    • Replies: @mikemikev
  294. Chinaman says:
    @Pincher Martin

    These childish taunts reflect more on you and Res than Oke.

    It was an ugly mud wrestling match but the level of the conversation have descended to 6 year old telling each other “you are stupid.” And “No, you are stupid!”

    It is like morons arguing who have higher IQ. Let’s get back to so premises both side can agree upon before disagreeing.

    Where do you guys even find the time to write this rubbish? Nothing better to do, I guess.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
  295. @Chinaman

    These childish taunts reflect more on you and Res than Oke.

    Uncle Wong, I see that Okefenokee’s verbal beatdown of you in the other thread had its desired effect by bringing you back onto his plantation.

    Best of luck to you and your new boss-friend.

    Keep your head down in Hong Kong. Some of the natives there have a lot more spunk than you do.

  296. mikemikev says:
    @res

    You can generate a PCA with Eigenstrat and plot it with R.

    • Replies: @res
  297. @Chinaman

    You are a hate filled anti-white bigot and a moron.

    Asian IQ is only slightly higher than white IQ, while whites have built the entire modern world and everything in it.

    The Chinese tend to be thieves, copycats, and sheep, stealing technology from whites.

    You are your people are not creative or imaginative.

    Basically, you’re just a bigmouth asshole.

  298. @Oliver D. Smith

    There’s no way those SSA countries are that low in IQ, putting some in the “mental retardation” range

    General Butt Naked disagrees.

  299. Dr. Thompson, in reading just the preface of Jensen’s Genetics and Education from 1972, I’m struck by how little has changed in almost 50 years.

    I also learned a fascinating and descriptive term: Educational Lysenkoism. I define this as the only (pseudo)scientific approach to education allowed under the currently fashionable Cargo Cult we might label the West’s Dominant Religion of Universalism/Equalism.

    I remain confident that science (properly defined) is largely dead, and the zombie now wearing its clothes is in the process of discrediting the entire notion of empirical elucidation of (R)eality.

    Which is worse, religious elimination of empirical investigation of questions that have answers, or dressing in “science clothes” results of so-called studies purporting to answer unanswerable questions? Two sides of the same coin, sadly.

    In Idiocracy there is no science. Alan Cromer’s history and description of science, Uncommon Sense: The Heretical Nature of Science is aptly titled.

    • Replies: @James Thompson
  300. @dc.sunsets

    Thanks for the Cromer reference. Lewis Wolpert, whom I knew at the Middlesex Hospital, always argued that science was a weird way of thinking, and was confined to a minority. He did not directly say it was the brighter minority, but in an interview, when accused of believing that science was a superior type of thinking, agreed that it was.

    In our discussions I was able to convince him there was no such thing as a hypnotic state, and once at a very large conference publicly corrected him for saying that the sun rose because the earth went round the sun.

    He is a great guy, and a very fine biologist.

    I would teach the world that science is the best way to understand the world, and that for any set of observations, there is only one correct explanation. Also, science is value-free, as it explains the world as it is. Ethical issues arise only when science is applied to technology – from medicine to industry

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 James Thompson Comments via RSS